Wohlers22 Eb

Wohlers Report 2022
3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing

Global State of the Industry
Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence ● ASTM International ● 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030
Washington, DC 20036 ● 970-225-0086 ● wohlersassociates.com
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX6HS*07

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
'(6,'2&&RQVRUWLXPSXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
Wohlers Report 2022
Trademarked company and product names are the property of their respective
owners. The images on the front cover (from top to bottom and left to right) are
courtesy of 1) Olaf Diegel, 2) Olaf Diegel, 3) 3T Additive Manufacturing, 4) Olaf
Diegel, 5) Olaf Diegel, 6) GE Aviation, 7) Olaf Diegel, and 8) Radic
Performance.
The information in this report was obtained from sources that Wohlers
Associates, powered by ASTM International, does not control but believes to be
honest and reliable. The company in no way assumes any part of the risk of the
buyer or reader of this report; does not guarantee its completeness, timeliness,
or accuracy; and shall not be held liable for anything resulting from use of or
reliance on the information, or from omission or negligence.
Terry Wohlers, Noah Mostow, Ian Campbell, Olaf Diegel, Joseph Kowen, and
Ismail Fidan authored sections of this report. Unless otherwise noted, images
and illustrations are from Wohlers Associates.
COPYRIGHT © 2022 BY ASTM INTERNATIONAL. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act, no part of this
publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means
without prior written permission from Wohlers Associates.
ISBN 978-0-9913332-9-5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 24 23 22
COPYRIGHT © 2022 3 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Table of Contents
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.........................................................................................................................................................10
REMARKS FROM ASTM INTERNATIONAL ..............................................................................................................................12
A NOTE FROM TERRY WOHLERS .........................................................................................................................................12
ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND EDITORS ..................................................................................................................................13
Principal authors ........................................................................................................................................................13
Associate author ........................................................................................................................................................15
Editorial team .............................................................................................................................................................16
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND CONVERSIONS ................................................................................................................17
PART 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................18
FOCUS OF THIS REPORT .....................................................................................................................................................18
INTRODUCTION TO AM AND 3D PRINTING.............................................................................................................................19
Processes and feedstock ...........................................................................................................................................20
Putting AM to work .....................................................................................................................................................20
HISTORY OF AM ...............................................................................................................................................................22
1960s to the modern era ............................................................................................................................................22
March 2021 to March 2022 ........................................................................................................................................22
INDUSTRY SURVEY ............................................................................................................................................................28
APPLICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................30
Prototyping .................................................................................................................................................................30
Tooling .......................................................................................................................................................................33
Final part production ..................................................................................................................................................36
Additional applications ...............................................................................................................................................37
INDUSTRIES ......................................................................................................................................................................38
Aerospace ..................................................................................................................................................................38
Medical.......................................................................................................................................................................42
Dentistry .....................................................................................................................................................................46
Automotive .................................................................................................................................................................49
Consumer products ....................................................................................................................................................53
Education and academic research .............................................................................................................................56
Power and energy ......................................................................................................................................................58
Government and military ............................................................................................................................................61
Architectural models...................................................................................................................................................63
Construction ...............................................................................................................................................................66
Other industries ..........................................................................................................................................................69
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS ............................................................................................................................................71
AM will replace conventional manufacturing ..............................................................................................................71
Complexity is free ......................................................................................................................................................72
AM is a “push button” process ...................................................................................................................................73
Most AM systems are similar .....................................................................................................................................74
AM is environmentally friendly ...................................................................................................................................74
Few materials are available for AM ............................................................................................................................75
Metal AM produces parts inexpensively .....................................................................................................................75
AM parts are inferior to conventional parts.................................................................................................................76
Every home will have a 3D printer .............................................................................................................................76
PART 2: MATERIALS AND PROCESSES .......................................................................................................................77
PROCESSES .....................................................................................................................................................................77
Material extrusion .......................................................................................................................................................78
Vat photopolymerization.............................................................................................................................................80
Powder bed fusion .....................................................................................................................................................83
Material jetting............................................................................................................................................................86
Binder jetting ..............................................................................................................................................................88
Directed energy deposition ........................................................................................................................................90
Sheet lamination ........................................................................................................................................................92
MATERIALS ......................................................................................................................................................................94
Polymers ....................................................................................................................................................................94
New polymer products ...............................................................................................................................................99
Polymer pricing ........................................................................................................................................................101

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Metals ......................................................................................................................................................................102
New metal powders .................................................................................................................................................105
Producing powders for metal AM .............................................................................................................................107
Metal powder pricing ................................................................................................................................................111
Composites and hybrid materials .............................................................................................................................112
Materials for metal-casting .......................................................................................................................................115
Ceramics and other materials ..................................................................................................................................117
THIRD-PARTY MATERIAL PRODUCERS ................................................................................................................................119
Open vs. closed material business models ..............................................................................................................119
Third-party producers ...............................................................................................................................................120
MATERIALS DATABASE .....................................................................................................................................................122
Materials by process ................................................................................................................................................123
Material producers and products ..............................................................................................................................123
PART 3: INDUSTRY GROWTH ......................................................................................................................................127
REVENUE FROM AM WORLDWIDE .....................................................................................................................................127
Products and services ..............................................................................................................................................128
Growth percentages .................................................................................................................................................129
SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS ...............................................................................................................................................129
Unit sales .................................................................................................................................................................131
Market shares ..........................................................................................................................................................132
Systems sold by region ............................................................................................................................................133
Average selling price ................................................................................................................................................134
Metal AM systems ....................................................................................................................................................134
Polymer AM systems ...............................................................................................................................................135
Unit sales by manufacturer and year........................................................................................................................135
DESKTOP 3D PRINTERS ...................................................................................................................................................141
Sales growth ............................................................................................................................................................142
China........................................................................................................................................................................142
Materials and R&D ...................................................................................................................................................143
AM MATERIAL SALES .......................................................................................................................................................144
Photopolymers .........................................................................................................................................................145
Polymer powders .....................................................................................................................................................146
Filaments .................................................................................................................................................................147
Metals ......................................................................................................................................................................147
SERVICE PROVIDERS .......................................................................................................................................................148
Primary service market ............................................................................................................................................148
Service provider survey............................................................................................................................................149
Contributing service providers ..................................................................................................................................149
Survey results ..........................................................................................................................................................152
Pre- and post-processing .........................................................................................................................................152
Most profitable AM processes ..................................................................................................................................153
Most profitable materials ..........................................................................................................................................155
Revenue growth .......................................................................................................................................................156
Competition ..............................................................................................................................................................157
Comments from service providers ...........................................................................................................................158
INVESTMENT IN PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES ...................................................................................................................161
Revenues and earnings ...........................................................................................................................................164
Outlook.....................................................................................................................................................................168
MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS ...........................................................................................................................................169
CORPORATE INVESTMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................171
CAD SOLID MODELING .....................................................................................................................................................172
PART 4: FINAL PART PRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................175
BENEFITS OF AM FOR PRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................176
Reduction of tooling .................................................................................................................................................176
Reduced lead time and on-demand manufacturing .................................................................................................177
Reduced inventory and part consolidation ...............................................................................................................178
Sustainability and waste reduction ...........................................................................................................................179
Custom product manufacturing ................................................................................................................................179
Generative design and biomimicry ...........................................................................................................................180
Optimized structures ................................................................................................................................................181

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
DESIGN FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING ............................................................................................................................182

Lightweighting and topology optimization ................................................................................................................183
Complex lattice structures ........................................................................................................................................184
Support material and post-process optimization ......................................................................................................186
Consolidating parts ..................................................................................................................................................189
Improved fluid flow, conformal cooling, and efficiency .............................................................................................190
Economic benefits of DfAM ......................................................................................................................................191
Calculating part cost and factors impacting it ...........................................................................................................193
SOFTWARE .....................................................................................................................................................................197
3D scan-processing .................................................................................................................................................198
Topology optimization and generative design ..........................................................................................................200
Repair ......................................................................................................................................................................201
Simulation ................................................................................................................................................................202
Slicing and print preparation ....................................................................................................................................202
Print management ....................................................................................................................................................203
Manufacturing execution systems ............................................................................................................................204
Security ....................................................................................................................................................................205
Medical imaging .......................................................................................................................................................205
PROCESS MONITORING OF METAL POWDER BED FUSION ......................................................................................................210
Aconity3D.................................................................................................................................................................213
Addiguru...................................................................................................................................................................214
Additive Monitoring Systems ....................................................................................................................................214
EOS .........................................................................................................................................................................214
GE Additive ..............................................................................................................................................................214
Layer Metrics ...........................................................................................................................................................215
Manufacturing Demonstration Facility ......................................................................................................................215
Open Additive ..........................................................................................................................................................216
Renishaw .................................................................................................................................................................216
Sigma Labs ..............................................................................................................................................................217
SLM Solutions ..........................................................................................................................................................217
Velo3D .....................................................................................................................................................................217
Outlook.....................................................................................................................................................................217
POST-PROCESSING .........................................................................................................................................................218
Polymer parts ...........................................................................................................................................................219
Surface treatment of polymer parts ..........................................................................................................................223
Metal parts ...............................................................................................................................................................226
Thermal processing metal parts ...............................................................................................................................228
Metal support material removal ................................................................................................................................229
Metal surface treatment ...........................................................................................................................................231
Automation ...............................................................................................................................................................233
AM part inspection ...................................................................................................................................................235
COSTS AND CHALLENGES .................................................................................................................................................237
Operating costs ........................................................................................................................................................237
Cost justification .......................................................................................................................................................237
Machine throughput .................................................................................................................................................238
Metal part production cost considerations ................................................................................................................238
Safety considerations ...............................................................................................................................................240
Facility considerations ..............................................................................................................................................240
Additional equipment ...............................................................................................................................................241
Qualification and quality ...........................................................................................................................................241
Educating designers ................................................................................................................................................242
SCALING AM INTO PRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................243
Production systems ..................................................................................................................................................243
Software ...................................................................................................................................................................244
Staff and maintenance .............................................................................................................................................244
Post-processing .......................................................................................................................................................245
Finishing...................................................................................................................................................................245
Quality control ..........................................................................................................................................................245
PART 5: GLOBAL REPORTS .........................................................................................................................................247
INSTALLATIONS BY COUNTRY ...........................................................................................................................................247
ASIA/PACIFIC..................................................................................................................................................................248
China........................................................................................................................................................................248

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
India .........................................................................................................................................................................249
Japan .......................................................................................................................................................................251
South Korea .............................................................................................................................................................252
Singapore.................................................................................................................................................................253
Taiwan .....................................................................................................................................................................254
AUSTRALASIA .................................................................................................................................................................255
Australia ...................................................................................................................................................................255
New Zealand ............................................................................................................................................................256
EUROPE .........................................................................................................................................................................257
Austria ......................................................................................................................................................................258
Belgium ....................................................................................................................................................................259
Denmark ..................................................................................................................................................................260
Finland .....................................................................................................................................................................260
France ......................................................................................................................................................................261
Germany ..................................................................................................................................................................263
Hungary ...................................................................................................................................................................264
Italy ..........................................................................................................................................................................265
Netherlands..............................................................................................................................................................266
Norway .....................................................................................................................................................................267
Poland ......................................................................................................................................................................268
Portugal....................................................................................................................................................................269
Romania...................................................................................................................................................................270
Slovenia ...................................................................................................................................................................271
Spain ........................................................................................................................................................................271
Sweden ....................................................................................................................................................................272
Switzerland ..............................................................................................................................................................273
Turkey ......................................................................................................................................................................274
United Kingdom .......................................................................................................................................................275
MIDDLE EAST .................................................................................................................................................................276
Egypt ........................................................................................................................................................................276
Iran ...........................................................................................................................................................................277
Israel ........................................................................................................................................................................278
OTHER REGIONS .............................................................................................................................................................279
Brazil ........................................................................................................................................................................279
Canada ....................................................................................................................................................................280
South Africa .............................................................................................................................................................282
United States ...........................................................................................................................................................284
PART 6: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................286
TRENDS .........................................................................................................................................................................286
PATENTS........................................................................................................................................................................287
Patent litigation ........................................................................................................................................................289
CONSORTIA AND COLLABORATION .....................................................................................................................................290
ASTM AM Center of Excellence ...............................................................................................................................290
America Makes ........................................................................................................................................................291
Fraunhofer Society ...................................................................................................................................................291
Women in 3D Printing ..............................................................................................................................................292
Mobility Goes Additive..............................................................................................................................................293
Partnerships .............................................................................................................................................................294
Other groups and associations ................................................................................................................................296
AM STANDARDS..............................................................................................................................................................298
ASTM Committee F42..............................................................................................................................................298
ISO/TC 261 ..............................................................................................................................................................300
AM Standardization Collaborative ............................................................................................................................301
AM ACTIVITIES AT NASA ................................................................................................................................................301
AM IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ......................................................................................................................303
U.S. GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED R&D ..............................................................................................................................304
National Science Foundation ...................................................................................................................................304
DOD, DOE, and DOC ..............................................................................................................................................305
National Institutes of Health .....................................................................................................................................306
U.S. NATIONAL LABORATORIES .........................................................................................................................................306
Oak Ridge National Laboratory ................................................................................................................................307
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ................................................................................................................308

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Sandia National Laboratories ...................................................................................................................................308

GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED R&D IN EUROPE ....................................................................................................................310
ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................................................312
Research innovations...............................................................................................................................................312
The Americas ...........................................................................................................................................................313
Asia/Pacific ..............................................................................................................................................................320
Europe, Middle East, and Africa ...............................................................................................................................322
Research institutes with AM capabilities ..................................................................................................................326
PART 7: THE FUTURE OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING ...........................................................................................329
ADVANCES POINT TO WHAT IS NEXT ...................................................................................................................................329
Technical directions and trends ...............................................................................................................................329
Challenges ahead ....................................................................................................................................................334
EMERGING APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................................................334
3D-printed electronics ..............................................................................................................................................334
3D-printed food ........................................................................................................................................................335
3D-printed medicine .................................................................................................................................................337
3D SCANNING .................................................................................................................................................................338
Current state of 3D measurement ............................................................................................................................339
Processing 3D scan data .........................................................................................................................................340
Democratization .......................................................................................................................................................342
Trends and opportunities .........................................................................................................................................342
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................................343
SUSTAINABILITY AND A CIRCULAR ECONOMY .......................................................................................................................344
LANDSCAPE OF AM STARTUPS .........................................................................................................................................346
STARTUPS AND EARLY-STAGE INVESTMENTS ......................................................................................................................348
Acquisitions and public offerings ..............................................................................................................................352
NEW AM COMPANIES ......................................................................................................................................................353
MARKET FORECAST AND OPPORTUNITY .............................................................................................................................355
REPORT SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................................357
PART 8: SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS..........................................................................................................................358
ASIA/PACIFIC..................................................................................................................................................................358
Aspect ......................................................................................................................................................................359
Bright Laser Technologies .......................................................................................................................................359
Eplus3D ...................................................................................................................................................................360
Farsoon ....................................................................................................................................................................362
Mimaki......................................................................................................................................................................363
UnionTech................................................................................................................................................................363
XYZprinting ..............................................................................................................................................................364
ZRapid .....................................................................................................................................................................365
GERMANY ......................................................................................................................................................................367
Arburg ......................................................................................................................................................................367
BigRep .....................................................................................................................................................................367
DMG Mori.................................................................................................................................................................368
EOS .........................................................................................................................................................................369
SLM Solutions ..........................................................................................................................................................370
Trumpf......................................................................................................................................................................370
Voxeljet ....................................................................................................................................................................372
OTHER COMPANIES IN EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST .......................................................................................................372
Additive Industries ....................................................................................................................................................372
AddUp ......................................................................................................................................................................373
Admatec ...................................................................................................................................................................374
BeAM .......................................................................................................................................................................374
Digital Metal .............................................................................................................................................................375
DWS.........................................................................................................................................................................376
Lithoz .......................................................................................................................................................................377
Prodways .................................................................................................................................................................377
Renishaw .................................................................................................................................................................378
Sinterit ......................................................................................................................................................................379
Sisma .......................................................................................................................................................................380
Stratasys ..................................................................................................................................................................380

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
XJet ..........................................................................................................................................................................382
U.S. ..............................................................................................................................................................................383
3D Systems..............................................................................................................................................................383
Carbon .....................................................................................................................................................................384
Cincinnati .................................................................................................................................................................385
Desktop Metal ..........................................................................................................................................................385
Essentium ................................................................................................................................................................386
ETEC .......................................................................................................................................................................387
ExOne ......................................................................................................................................................................388
Formlabs ..................................................................................................................................................................389
GE Additive ..............................................................................................................................................................389
HP ............................................................................................................................................................................390
Markforged ...............................................................................................................................................................391
Optomec ..................................................................................................................................................................392
MANUFACTURER, PROCESS, AND MATERIAL MATRIX ............................................................................................................393
ADDITIONAL SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS..............................................................................................................................394
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................................................400
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS ..................................................................................................................................400
APPENDIX B: 1988–2006 UNIT SALES...............................................................................................................................409
APPENDIX C: METAL AM COMPARISON MATRIX ..................................................................................................................412
APPENDIX D: 3D SCANNING SYSTEMS ...............................................................................................................................425

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments Wohlers Associates thanks the hundreds of individuals and organizations

that contributed to this report. Creating this edition would have been
impossible without them.
Wohlers Associates is grateful for the generous input from 117 service
providers, 114 manufacturers of additive manufacturing systems, and 29
producers of third-party materials.
The following 85 contributors authored sections of this report. Wohlers

Associates acknowledges their hard work and kind support.
Mukesh Agarwala 3D Product Development India

Anton Aulbers TNO Netherlands
Nicolae Balc Technical University of Cluj–Napoca Romania
Kris Binon Flam3D Belgium
Klas Boivie SINTEF Norway
Gerrie Booysen Central University of Technology South Africa
David Brackett Manufacturing Technology Centre UK
Milan Brandt RMIT University Australia
Stefanie Brickwede Mobility Goes Additive Germany
Andy Christensen University of Cincinnati U.S.
Doug Collins Avid Product Development U.S.
Deon de Beer Central University of Technology South Africa
Frank Defalco NGen Canada
Alex Doukas Kinetic Vision U.S.
Brian Drab William Blair & Company U.S.
Igor Drstvenšek University of Maribor Slovenia
Nicholas Eitsert Finnegan LLP U.S.
David Espalin University of Texas at El Paso U.S.
Thomas Feldhausen Oak Ridge National Laboratory U.S.
Matthew Friedell Colorado Air National Guard U.S.
Khalid Abdel Ghany CMRDI Egypt
Morgan Gillott-Crooks Wohlers Associates U.S.
Dan Guo Additive Manufacturing Alliance of China China
Arno Held AM Ventures Germany
Shamil Hargovan STS Capital Partners Canada
Lars Holmegaard Danish AM Hub Denmark
Seyed Hosseini RISE Research Institute of Sweden Sweden
Jeng-Ywan Jeng National Taiwan University of Science and Tech. Taiwan
Kevin Jurrens National Institute of Standards and Technology U.S.
Blake Keating William Blair & Company U.S.
Andrzej Kęsy University of Technology and Humanities Poland
Babak Kianian Lund University Sweden
Ryan Kircher Kircher Consulting U.S.
Jason Laing ProMake International UK
Feng Lin Tsinghua University China
Aia Lykke Danish AM Hub Denmark
Giorgio Magistrelli A3DM Magazine France
Julien Magnien Sirris Belgium
Simon Marriott GoProto Australia
Manyalibo Matthews Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory U.S.
Gianluca Mattaroccia Estée Lauder U.S.
Greg Morris Vertex Manufacturing U.S.
Tom Mueller Mueller Additive Manufacturing Solutions U.S.
Kristin Mulherin AM-Cubed U.S.
Bernhard Müller Fraunhofer IWU Germany
Ireneusz Musiałek Jan Kochanowski University Poland
Randall Newton Consilia Vektor U.S.
Hideaki Oba 3D Printing Industry Technology Association Japan

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Acknowledgments
John Obielodan University of Wisconsin–Platteville U.S.

Miklos Odrobina Szent István University Hungary
Charles Overy LGM U.S.
Keun Park Seoul National University of Science and Tech. Korea
Nick Pearce Alexander Daniels Global U.S.
Joris Peels 3DPrint.com Netherlands
Burak Pekcan +90 Turkey
Pat Picariello ASTM International U.S.
Sebastian Piegert Siemens Energy Germany
Behrang Poorganji University of Toledo U.S.
Michele Pressacco LimaCorporate Italy
Michael Raphael Direct Dimensions U.S.
Elisa Salatin LimaCorporate Italy
Kyle Saleeby Oak Ridge National Laboratory U.S.
Mika Salmi Aalto University Finland
Marco Salvisberg GF Casting Solutions Switzerland
Jörg Sander Hensoldt Sensors Germany
P. Randall Schunk Sandia National Laboratories U.S.
Luke Scime Oak Ridge National Laboratory U.S.
Christian Seidel Fraunhofer IGCV Germany
Mohsen Seifi ASTM International U.S.
Jorge Vicente Lopes da Silva Renato Archer Information Technology Center Brazil
Aidan Skoyles Finnegan LLP U.S.
John Slotwinski Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory U.S.
Chris Spadaccini Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory U.S.
Jürgen Stampfl Vienna University of Technology Austria
Riccardo Toninato LimaCorporate Italy
Nora Touré Women in 3D Printing U.S.
Kjeld van Bommel TNO Netherlands
Joel Vasco Polytechnic Institute of Leiria Portugal
Benoit Verquin Cetim France
John Vickers NASA U.S.
Nicole Wake GE Healthcare U.S.
Matthew Waterhouse 3D Metalforge Singapore
John Wilczynski America Makes U.S.
David Wimpenny Manufacturing Technology Centre UK
Naiara Zubizarreta ADDIMAT Spain

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 About the Authors and Editors
Remarks from ASTM International has supported the development of additive

manufacturing (AM) for more than a decade. In 2009, it established the first
ASTM International committee (F42) on developing consensus-based globally recognized
standards. In 2018, the organization accelerated the pace of standards,
education, and workforce development by establishing a global AM center of
excellence (AM CoE).
ASTM International has expanded its vision for AM by joining forces with
Wohlers Associates. Over the past 35 years, Wohlers Associates has developed
exceptional capabilities around AM market intelligence and consulting. The
company's brand and reputation are unmatched.
The synergy from acquiring Wohlers Associates and the Wohlers Report has
expanded the offerings of the AM CoE. Together, the two are providing
advisory services, training, and expert reports. Through the AM CoE, a fast-
growing team of experts are contributing to events, publications, special
initiatives, and the development of standards.
The Wohlers Report has been a trustworthy and highly respected source on 3D
printing for more than 25 years. The report is a resource for new and
experienced professionals from industry, governments, and research institutes
interested in understanding the current state of the AM industry and where it
is headed. It will continue to serve as a valuable resource for many years to
come.
Input and feedback on the report are encouraged. We hope it provides the
information and insight you are seeking.
Mohsen Seifi, Ph.D.

Director of Global Additive Manufacturing Programs
Executive Director, Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence
ASTM International
Washington, DC, U.S.
A note from I could not be happier with ASTM International’s acquisition of Wohlers
Associates. We have experienced incredible synergy since Day One and
Terry Wohlers could not be more aligned. The ASTM AM CoE leadership is in full support of
continuing and expanding the portfolio of products and services from
Wohlers Associates, including the Wohlers Report.
Our goal is to serve as a resource to companies, the research community, and

government agencies as they navigate an overwhelming range of options in
AM. We hope that Wohlers Report 2022 helps guide these organizations toward
success.
We are fully committed to helping the AM industry develop the talent and
resources needed for standards and educational and training programs. I am
more excited than ever about the future of AM and plan to be a part of the
industry for many years to come.
Terry Wohlers, MSc, Dr. h.c., FSME

Head of Advisory Services and Market Intelligence
Distinguished Fellow of Advanced Manufacturing
Wohlers Associates, Powered by ASTM International
Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
About the At the core of Wohlers Report 2022 is a global team of five principal
authors spanning four continents. These individuals collect, analyze, and
Authors and Editors organize contributions and data from around the world. They also author
many sections of the report. A vital part of the core group is an editorial
team and associate author. These professionals played a key role in the
development of the report.
Principal authors Terry Wohlers, MSc, Dr. h.c., FSME: Wohlers founded Wohlers Associates,
a global consulting firm, 35 years ago. The company was sold to ASTM
International in Q4 2021. Through this company, Wohlers and his team
have provided consulting assistance to more than 280 organizations in 27
countries. Wohlers has also provided insight to nearly 200 additional
clients in the investment community.
Wohlers has been cited in countless domestic and foreign publications,

including Bloomberg Businessweek, CNNMoney, The Economist, Financial
Times, and Forbes. He has also been included in Fortune, Nature, Reuters,
The New York Times, Parade, Scientific American, USA Today, The Wall
Street Journal, and WIRED. Wohlers has been featured
in broadcasts by Bloomberg, CBS Radio News, CNBC,
CNN, Fox Business, MSNBC, National Public Radio
(NPR), Australia’s Sky News, Canada’s Business News
Network, and China’s CCTV News.
Wohlers has authored or co-authored more than 440

books, articles, and technical papers on rapid product
development and manufacturing. He has given 170
keynote presentations on six continents in cities ranging from Seoul and
São Paulo to Bangalore and Cape Town. Wohlers was a featured speaker in
events held at the U.S. White House in 2012 and 2014.
His appetite for adventure has motivated him to climb the Great Wall of
China, hike the rain forests of New Zealand, dive among sharks in Belize,
and bathe in the Dead Sea. He has ridden elephants in Thailand,
encountered lions in Africa, explored the ancient pyramids of Egypt, and
traveled the crocodile-infested rivers of Malaysian Borneo. He jumped
from a bridge near Queenstown, New Zealand, where commercial bungy
jumping originated. Most recently, he has skied the peaks of southwest
British Columbia, Canada, by helicopter.
Wohlers received an Honorary Doctoral Degree in Mechanical Engineering

from Central University of Technology in Bloemfontein, South Africa in
2004. In 2005, he became a Fellow of the Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, a distinction granted to less than 1% of the membership. He
currently serves as an adjunct professor at RMIT University in Melbourne,
Australia.
Ian Campbell, PhD: Campbell is an associate consultant at Wohlers

Associates. He is also an emeritus professor in computer-aided product
design at Loughborough University in the UK. He has led the Design
Practice Research Group, served as director of the Research School of
Design, and led the Digital Technologies Research Theme.
Prior to 2000, Campbell was a lecturer at the University of Nottingham,

working in the ground-breaking Rapid Prototyping Research Group led by

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Phill Dickens. Campbell began his career as an

engineering designer at Ford Motor Company and the
Rover Group.
Campbell has been working in the field of additive

manufacturing since 1993. He has established
international partnerships with colleagues in South
Africa, Portugal, Slovenia, Egypt, China, and Romania.
He is particularly interested in new design
opportunities afforded by additive manufacturing and has advised
industrial partners.
He is an international honorary member of the Rapid Product

Development Association of South Africa and was editor of the Rapid
Prototyping Journal from 1995 to 2020.
Olaf Diegel, PhD: Diegel is an associate consultant at Wohlers Associates,

as well as an educator and practitioner of rapid product development and
engineering. Diegel also serves as a professor of additive
manufacturing at the University of Auckland in New
Zealand.
He has an impressive track record of developing

innovative solutions to engineering problems. Over the
past 20 years, Diegel has created more than 100
commercial products for theater lighting, security,
marine, and home health-monitoring. He has also
designed and manufactured a world-class line of guitars that have
captured media attention globally. Additive manufacturing is used as the
core technology to produce the main body of these extraordinary products.
Diegel is fluent in English and French and can speak Japanese. He is skilled
in using SolidWorks for complex organic shapes and features. Diegel has a
strong interest in additive manufacturing and advanced manufacturing
systems. He has published widely and frequently speaks at international
events around the world.
Joseph Kowen, LLB, MBA: Kowen is an associate consultant at Wohlers

Associates. He has been a consultant, marketing executive, and business
development professional for many years in the additive manufacturing
industry. He has also served in several positions focusing on new business
development, international markets, and distribution
channels. Kowen holds a bachelor-of-law degree from
Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel and an MBA
from the Weatherhead School of Management at Case
Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
Kowen served as vice president of sales and marketing

at Voxeljet AG, a manufacturer of large-format industrial
3D printing systems based in Augsburg, Germany. As an
entrepreneur, Kowen was a founder of iDent Imaging, a dental imaging
software and 3D-printed surgical guide company.
Previously, Kowen served as vice president of marketing at Objet, which

merged with Stratasys in 2012. He was responsible for the launch of first-
generation machines to the market and for the establishment and

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
management of distribution channels in the Asia/Pacific region.

Previously, Kowen was stationed in Brazil, where he managed the sale of
tungsten carbide cutting tools for Iscar.
Noah Mostow, MSc: Mostow is the market intelligence

and analytics manager at Wohlers Associates. He earned
a master’s degree in Advanced Manufacturing from the
Colorado School of Mines in 2020. He focused his studies
on 3D printing, lean six-sigma manufacturing, and
engineering management. Mostow is a dedicated
professional who works to exceed expectations. He is
passionate about exploring the impact of additive
manufacturing on consumer and commercial products. Away from his
computer, Mostow is an avid outdoorsman who enjoys traveling and
getting into the colorful Colorado mountains.
Mostow became interested in 3D printing as an undergraduate at the

University of Vermont while studying mechanical engineering. During his
final year, he gained hands-on experience with industrial 3D printing
systems at Burton Snowboard’s Rapid Prototype Laboratory. After Mostow
moved from Vermont to Colorado, he worked at 3D Systems Healthcare as
a biomedical engineer focusing on craniomaxillofacial reconstruction
surgeries. He worked with surgeons to plan procedures and collaborated
with internal teams at the company to design, manufacture, inspect, and
deliver FDA-cleared, 3D-printed medical devices.
Associate author Ismail Fidan, PhD: Ismail Fidan is a professor in the

Department of Manufacturing and Engineering
Technology at Tennessee Technological University. He
served as a research scientist at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and is active in SME, ASEE, ABET, ASME,
and IEEE. Fidan is the recipient of more than two
dozen university, board of regents, state, national, and
international awards. He serves as associate editor of
IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing
Technology, The Journal of Advanced Technological Education, and the
International Journal of Rapid Manufacturing. He is the production editor
of the Journal of Engineering Technology.
Fidan’s research and teaching interests are in additive manufacturing,

electronics manufacturing, distance learning, and STEM education. His
additive manufacturing research is being funded by multiple National
Science Foundation awards. Fidan is developing an Additive Manufacturing
Workforce Advancement Training Coalition and Hub with several U.S.
institutions.
He received a PhD in mechanical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute and did post-doctorate work at Stevens Institute of Technology.
Fidan was a U.S. Fulbright Senior Scholar at Nigde University.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Editorial team David L. Bourell, PhD: Bourell is an associate

consultant at Wohlers Associates and one of three
honorary consultants granted by the company. He is the
Temple Foundation Professor of Mechanical
Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a
leading expert in advanced materials for laser sintering
(LS), having worked in this area since 1988. Since 1995,
he has chaired the organizing committee for the Annual
International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, a leading research
conference on additive manufacturing.
Bourell holds nine primary patents dealing with materials innovations in

LS dating back to 1990. Bourell was the lead author on the original
materials patent for LS technology. This patent, issued in 1990, has been
cited by more than 300 other patents. He has published more than 300
papers in journals, conference proceedings, and books.
Bourell is a Fellow of ASM International and the Minerals, Metals &

Materials Society (TMS). He was elected to the TMS Board of Directors in
2020. In 2009, Bourell received the TMS Materials Processing and
Manufacturing Division Distinguished Scientist/Engineer Award. In 2017,
he was honored with the Society of Manufacturing Engineers Albert
Sargent Award. He is a founding member of ASTM Committee F42 on
Additive Manufacturing Technologies and currently serves on the
ASTM/ISO Joint Group 51 on Terminology for Additive Manufacturing.
Jenny van Rensburg: Van Rensburg retired in 2019

after 20 years as administration officer at Central
University of Technology (CUT) in Bloemfontein, South
Africa. She served as administrator of the ISO 13485
certification at CUT’s Centre for Rapid Prototyping and
Manufacturing.
Van Rensburg has a keen interest in 3D printing. She has

stayed in touch with developments in the industry as a proofreader for
CUT’s Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering. She has
served as proofreader of the Wohlers Report over the past five years.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Conversions
Acronyms, Within this report and the broader additive manufacturing (AM) industry,
many acronyms, abbreviations, and conversions are used. The following
Abbreviations, and are some of the most common. See Appendix A for a glossary of terms and
Conversions definitions.
ABS acrylonitrile butadiene styrene MJT material jetting

AM additive manufacturing PA polyamide (known as nylon)
BJT binder jetting PBF powder bed fusion
CAD computer-aided design PEEK polyether ether ketone
CNC computer numeric control PEI polyethylenimine
CT computed tomography PEKK polyetherketoneketone
DED directed energy deposition PETG polyethylene terephthalate glycol
DfAM design for additive manufacturing PLA polylactic acid
DLP digital light processing PU polyurethane
DOD U.S. Department of Defense SHL sheet lamination
EBM electron beam melting SMEs small- and medium-sized enterprises
EDM electrical discharge machining TPU thermoplastic polyurethane
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration ULTEM polyetherimide product from Sabic
MEX material extrusion UV ultraviolet
MJF multi jet fusion from HP VPP vat photopolymerization
Many currencies are used throughout the report. The following exchange
rates are from early March 2022.
Currency US$1= Currency US$1=

Australian dollar A$1.36 Norwegian krone 9.03 Norwegian krone
British pound £0.76 (£1=US$1.32) Polish złoty 4.48 Polish złoty
Canadian dollar C$1.27 Singapore dollar S$1.36
Chinese yuan 6.32 Chinese yuan South African rand 15.36 South African rand
Euro €0.91 (€1=US$1.09) South Korean won 1,218 South Korean won
Danish krone 6.81 Danish krone Swedish krona 9.87 Swedish krona
Japanese yen ¥114.88 Swiss francs 0.92 Swiss francs
New Zealand dollar NZ$1.46 Turkish lira 14.18 Turkish lira
Throughout the report, both metric and imperial units are provided. The
following table provides some common conversions.
Metric Imperial
1m 39.37 in
1 mm 0.039 in
1 µm 39.37 µin
1 m2 10.76 ft2
1 kg 2.2 lbs

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Part 1: Introduction
Part 1: Introduction
Focus of this report The Wohlers Report, published annually, is a comprehensive compilation
and analysis of additive manufacturing (AM) and 3D printing. These
terms are used interchangeably throughout the industry and this
publication. For 27 years, this report has provided a thorough review of
the global AM industry.
Wohlers Report 2022 was written for any individual or organization

seeking clear insight into the AM market. Groups that purchase this report
include product development and manufacturing companies, service
providers, startups, researchers, educators, and analysts. Others include
investors, government agencies, and developers of industry standards and
regulations.
An important part of this report is its comprehensive coverage of the AM

industry’s growth. Part 3 of the report includes revenues and machine unit
sales, complete with tables and charts illustrating relevant trends and
industrial segments. The foundation of this reporting is the more than 2.5
decades of data and information from the industry. Organizations
providing this data include producers of AM systems, software, and
materials, as well as service providers and customers. The information in
this report has been produced with the help of surveys, interviews,
research, and an international network of contributors and contacts.
The report serves as a “barometer” of the industry’s health and future. No

other publication in the AM industry includes 27 years of hard data as its
basis for calculating growth, analyzing trends, and forecasting the future.
Current technologies and trends related to final part production are

discussed in detail. Wohlers Report 2022 includes new and expanded
sections on the workforce and sustainability of AM. Also covered are
mergers and acquisitions, the patent landscape, and legal issues in the
industry.
The report provides updates on recent technical developments and

impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. It reports on advances in AM materials,
and 3D scanning. Wohlers Report 2022 documents government-sponsored
research and development (R&D), collaborations, consortiums, and the
activities of many academic and research institutes around the world.
The report concludes with a discussion of the emerging applications and

trends in AM’s developing ecosystem. It provides insight into the future—
what is driving the industry today and what to expect in the years ahead—
to assist in strategic planning and investing.
The 2022 edition features expanded discussion on investments and

startups in the AM industry. The report includes 62 charts and graphs, 108
tables, and 382 images and illustrations.
Wohlers Report 2022 can be used as a tool for education and knowledge
acceleration. Information can provide a competitive edge, and that is what
this report aims to do. Readers new to AM will gain a comprehensive
understanding of the technology and industry. Seasoned AM veterans will
benefit from the up-to-date information on growth, trends, and the latest
and most important developments.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Supplemental online information, as shown in the following table, is

included with Wohlers Report 2022. This information is accessed by live
links within this report. These documents are available exclusively to those
who purchase this report. Enter “wohlers” as the password for each of
them.
Document name Description

wohlersassociates.com/castmetal2022.pdf Cast metal parts (7 pages)
wohlersassociates.com/history2022.pdf History of AM (55 pages)
wohlersassociates.com/scan2022.pdf 3D scanning systems (3 pages)
Introduction to AM AM, as defined by the ISO/ASTM 52900 terminology standard, is the

process of joining materials to make parts from 3D model data. Usually,
and 3D printing material is joined layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive and
formative methods of manufacturing. Historical terms for AM include
additive fabrication, additive processes, additive techniques, additive
layer manufacturing, and layer manufacturing. Other terms include 3D
printing, direct digital manufacturing, freeform fabrication, solid
freeform fabrication, rapid manufacturing, and rapid prototyping.
The following schematic diagrams illustrate differences in the three main

methods of manufacturing. Formative manufacturing processes, depicted
in the top row, use tooling, such as a mold or die set, to form a part.
Examples are injection molding, die casting, and investment casting. Other
formative processes use tooling to deform feedstock. They include
thermoforming, forging, rolling, extrusion, and stamping.
Diagrams of formative (top), subtractive (middle),

and additive manufacturing (bottom)
Subtractive manufacturing processes, exemplified in the middle row,

create or reshape a part by removing material. Material is milled, turned,
cut, or ground. AM processes, represented in the bottom row, involve
layer-by-layer addition of material to create a part.
The term “3D printing” is often used in non-technical contexts

synonymously with additive manufacturing. 3D printing has become the de
facto standard term for commercial use. The academic and research
communities use the term additive manufacturing almost exclusively. The
terms additive manufacturing and 3D printing have the same meaning and
are used interchangeably in the industry.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Processes and feedstock AM encompasses seven distinctly different process categorizations as

defined in the ISO/ASTM 52900 standard. Each of these seven AM
categories is differentiated by the form of feedstock and/or the binding
process used to join the material. These processes and abbreviations—also
defined by this standard—are provided in the following table.
AM process Abbreviation
Binder jetting BJT
Directed energy deposition DED
Material extrusion MEX
Material jetting MJT
Powder bed fusion PBF
Sheet lamination SHL
Vat photopolymerization VPP
Feedstock is available as filament, wire, liquid, powder, pellets, paste, and

sheet material. Parts can be created in a layer-by-layer fashion by
extruding, jetting, photocuring, laminating, spraying, or thermally fusing
materials. These materials and processes are described in more detail in
Part 2 of this report.
The following table shows the intersections between the AM processes and
the available material families and applications, such as investment and
sand casting. Some processes are inherently linked to specific materials.
MEX VPP PBF BJT MJT DED SHL

Thermoplastic polymers x x x
Thermoset polymers x x
Elastomer polymers x x x x
Composites1 x x x x x x
Metals x x x x x x x
Graded/hybrid metals2 x x x
Ceramics x x x x x
Investment-casting patterns x x x x x
Sand molds and cores x x x
Paper/wood3 x x x
Source: Wohlers Associates
Footnotes:
1 Includes filled materials.
2 Hybrid materials are typically produced using ultrasonic SHL. Graded materials are produced with DED systems.
3 Include a binding agent.
Putting AM to work The application of AM may be driven by enhancing part performance. This
can include creating desirable geometric shapes that are either impossible
or very expensive to produce using formative or subtractive
manufacturing. Examples are tools with conformal cooling channels,
topology-optimized parts, and parts with internal cellular or lattice
structures. Enhanced performance may also include creating unique
microstructures that impact performance. This includes aligned grain
structure, refined grains, functionally graded composition and
microstructure, and preferred crystallographic texture.
AM applications may also be driven by cost reduction compared to other

manufacturing methods, particularly formative manufacturing, which
requires part-shape-specific tooling. Tooling is expensive and the cost
increases with complexity.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Formative processes are cost-effective for large production runs of

identical parts. The cost of tooling is spread over many parts. For example,
if 100 identical parts are needed and the tooling cost is $30,000, each part
would need to have a minimum value of $300 to recover the tooling cost
alone. If the production run is one million identical parts, the tooling cost
could be recovered by adding only $0.03 to each part. For this reason, AM
is best considered for short production runs unless the shape of each part
is unique in some way. A detailed cost analysis is necessary for any given
design and production quantity to determine if AM is cost-effective.
Another cost impact is the part’s size. Typically, AM favors production of

small parts rather than large ones. As described in Part 4, most AM
processes are penalized with large-volume parts. This is largely due to
exponentially increased build time, which lowers the production rate. The
result is increased part cost associated with AM-machine depreciation and
a drop in productivity and profitability.
As indicated in Part 2 of this report, the cost of AM feedstock is often an

order of magnitude higher than associated conventional manufacturing
feedstock. Therefore, AM becomes less attractive for large volumes due to
high material costs. A few AM processes are designed to accommodate
low-cost feedstock and large-volume parts. For metals, directed energy
deposition (DED) can produce parts of more than 1 m (3.3 ft) in length.
Large parts, such as composite tooling, car bodies, the walls of buildings,
and bridges, are made using material extrusion (MEX) processes with
polymer or concrete feedstock.
AM is used to build models, prototypes, patterns, tooling, and production

parts in plastics, metals, ceramics, glass, composites, and biomaterials. AM
systems produce parts using 3D models created by CAD software, 3D
scanning systems, medical imaging equipment, and even video games.
Design and manufacturing organizations use AM parts for products in the

consumer, industrial, medical, and military sectors, to name a few. Parts
for automobiles, aircraft, consumer electronics, energy systems, and
medical devices are just a few of a long list of products that benefit from
AM.
As a tool for rapid product development, AM can reduce time to market,

improve product quality, and reduce costs. Quick product iterations
streamline and expedite the product development process. As a
visualization tool, AM helps companies reduce the likelihood of delivering
a flawed product to the marketplace. Models allow companies to gain early
feedback from management, experts, customers, and stakeholders.
The use of AM for tooling is becoming a mature application. Historically,

the most common tooling applications for AM were rapid tooling and
injection-mold tooling inserts with the inclusion of conformal cooling
channels. Other efforts focus on using AM to produce manufacturing and
assembly tools, such as jigs, fixtures, gauges, templates, and drilling and
cutting guides.
AM significantly impacts the way some companies manufacture products.

Large and small organizations successfully apply the technology for the
production of finished goods. Wohlers Associates believes that this
practice will grow to become the largest and most significant application of
AM.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
A growing number of industrial sectors and geographic regions are

adopting AM. Its impact is expected to become even more significant in the
future. The industry continues to expand with the introduction of new
types of AM machines, materials, applications, workflows, software
products, and business models.
History of AM Many may be surprised to learn that fundamental concepts of AM were

developed and demonstrated more than 150 years ago. The first
computer-based AM systems were demonstrated more than 55 years
ago. Machines were introduced to the market in 1987 as beta test
systems, with full commercialization a year later.
The history of the industry is filled with new process developments, bold
entrepreneurs, and daring business ventures. Many new processes and
companies succeeded, but others did not.
1960s to the modern era The early developments in AM, including the commercialization of
stereolithography in 1988, are available in a 55-page document at
wohlersassociates.com/history2022.pdf. Enter “wohlers” for the
password. The document includes developments from the earliest
inventions in the 1960s to the 1990s and covers the industry’s history to
March 2021. This historical document was created exclusively for
readers of this report and is not published elsewhere.
March 2021 to In March 2021, AM Ventures, a German venture capital firm, partnered
March 2022 with KGAL Investment Management to launch a €100 million fund. The
partners will invest in early- and growth-stage AM startups. AM Ventures
has been investing in AM since 2014 and is one of a few companies
focused exclusively on AM-related investments. ExOne, with support
from Ford Motor Company, qualified aluminum 6061 for its BJT process.
ExOne reported that aluminum parts can be produced with 99% density.
Part made of aluminum 6061, courtesy of ExOne
In the same month, Ingersoll Machine Tools, in collaboration with Bell

Textron, 3D-printed a tool that is 6.7 m (22 ft) in length. The tool, shown in
the following image, is used to produce a composite helicopter rotor blade.
The mold is machined using a five-axis milling head on a gantry system.
Using AM, the time to produce the mold was reduced from more than four
months to a few weeks. The printing process took about 75 hours.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Bell Textron rotor tooling after printing, machining, and

vacuum sealing, courtesy of Inersoll Machine Tools
SAAB, the Swedish aerospace and defense company, tested a 3D-printed

hatch on a Gripen fighter aircraft in April 2021. The replacement part was
manufactured in polyamide. Enterprise Singapore and the Singapore
Standards Council issued new standards to improve the safety of AM. The
standards address the safe setup, operation, and maintenance of AM
facilities. The regulations and standards mark an increased acceptance of
3D printing as a collection of maturing manufacturing processes.
The same month, Japanese equipment manufacturer JEOL released an

electron-beam-based powder bed fusion (PBF) system. Stratasys
announced the Origin One vat photopolymerization (VPP) printer and
H350 polymer PBF system. Stratasys discontinued an internal project to
develop a metal 3D printing process.
Also in April 2021, four 3D-printed metal parts were installed at the
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) produced the parts. They are believed to be the first
3D-printed parts installed on a nuclear reactor. The parts were certified for
use and replaced conventionally cast and machined parts.
3D-printed channel fasteners for boiling water fuel

assembly, courtesy of Framatome and ORNL
In May 2021, Vallourec of France built an additively manufactured water

bushing for the EIG Elgin-Franklin rig in the North Sea. It was provided to
TotalEnergies, an oil and gas company. The part height was 1.2 m (47.2 in)
and weighed 220 kg (485 lbs). The water bushing was manufactured using

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
a wire-arc AM system. Zverse, a South Carolina company, launched an

automation-assisted software tool to convert 2D engineering drawings
into 3D models. The software is said to be useful for 3D printing spare
parts and legacy designs.
Lamborghini, an Italian luxury car manufacturer, announced production of

more than 20,000 parts for its vehicles. The parts were printed using VPP
systems from Carbon. Lamborghini produces less than 10,000 units
annually of its production models.
Special key for Huracan STO to open the

front hood, courtesy of Lamborghini
Also in May 2021, 3D Systems sold its parts service business for about $82
million to Trilantic North America, a private equity firm. The business was
created through a series of acquisitions beginning in 2009. From then until
2015, 3D Systems acquired 50 companies, 17 of which were service
providers.
In June 2021, Relativity Space raised $650 million in Series E funding to

develop the Terran R rocket. Seurat, a developer of metal AM systems,
closed a $41 million Series B funding round. The company is developing a
new laser PBF system to produce metal parts.
Volkswagen announced plans to produce 100,000 metal AM parts per year

by 2025. The company is partnering with Siemens to scale its metal
printing processes using the Metal Jet system from HP. The U.S. Air Force
awarded airworthiness qualification to an F110 sump cover made using
metal AM at GE Aviation.
F110 sump cover, courtesy of GE

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In July 2021, AM Global partnered with Randerath to establish an Aviation

AM Center. The center will use polymer PBF systems from EOS to make
interior cabin parts for aircraft. After closing its Series E funding in June,
Relativity Space signed a lease for a 93,000-m2 (1,000,000-ft2)
headquarters and manufacturing facility in Long Beach, California.
The same month, Desktop Metal acquired Aerosint, a Belgium developer of

a multi-material powder recoating process for PBF and BJT systems.
Continuous Composites raised $17 million in Series A funding. The
company plans to commercialize its patented composite MEX system.
Continuous Composites filed a patent infringement lawsuit against
Markforged prior to closing the investment round.
Carbon-fiber skateboard, courtesy

of Continuous Composites
In August 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) published its

strategy, vision, and goals for AM across all branches of the military. As a
part of the effort, DOD created the Joint Additive Manufacturing Working
Group to focus on implementing its strategy. In the UK, the Digital
Manufacturing Centre opened to support AM adoption in the aerospace,
automotive, medical, marine, and oil and gas industries. The center was
partially funded by industry partners and collaborators.
The same month, GE Aviation shipped its 100,000th 3D-printed nozzle for
the LEAP jet engine. Metal PBF was used to produce part of the nozzle. The
effort is part of GE Aviation’s joint venture with Safran, a French
manufacturer of engines. Up to 19 nozzles are used in each engine. The
nozzle weighs 25% less than one made conventionally and lasts five times
longer. Desktop Metal announced its acquisition of ExOne in a stock and
cash transaction valued at $575 million. Both companies produce metal
BJT systems and were competitors prior to the acquisition.
In September 2021, HP announced that more than 100 million parts had
been produced by its customers. 3D Systems acquired manufacturing
software company Oqton for $180 million in cash and stock. Oqton’s
manufacturing execution system is designed to improve workflow and
increase AM efficiency.
ORNL 3D printed a concrete wall with internal cooling channels. The aim of
the project is to circulate chilled water to cool buildings in warm climates.
Preliminary results showed an energy saving of 8%.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In October 2021, Velo3D completed its merger with JAWS Spitfire

Acquisition and began trading under the VLD symbol. The merger
provided the company $274 million in funding to expand its business.
Relativity Space completed testing of the first stage of its Terran 1 rocket.
The company uses proprietary 3D printing technology to produce rocket
parts up to 7.6 m (25 ft) in height. Launcher announced the successful hot-
fire testing of a 3D-printed thrust chamber for its E-2 rocket engine. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted the test
at its Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
3D-printed nose cone for Terran 1 rocket,

courtesy of Relativity Space
Also in October, the American Petroleum Institute published its first

standard for qualifying AM parts in the oil and gas industry. The standard
currently applies to metal AM and later will include polymer AM.
In November 2021, Advanced Laser Materials, a subsidiary of EOS,

partnered with Arkema to commercialize a polymer for PBF that has been
certified as carbon neutral. The material is derived from sustainably
sourced castor beans grown in India. LightForce Orthodontics raised $50
million in Series C funding to scale operations and promote the company’s
3D-printed brackets for straightening teeth. The company claims the
ceramic brackets may be used in cases where clear dental aligners are not
feasible.
The same month, Desktop Metal completed its acquisition of ExOne. 3D

Systems acquired Volumetric Biotechnologies, a Texas manufacturer of
bioprinters for producing human tissue. ASTM International announced
the acquisition of Wohlers Associates, a global intelligence leader in the AM
industry. Wohlers Associates became part of the ASTM International
Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence in Washington, DC.
In December 2021, the University of Sydney opened the Sydney

Manufacturing Hub. The center provides AM services and research on AM
processes. Bioinks, developed at the University of Birmingham, were used
to 3D print skin. The printed skin can be implanted onto wounds to speed
healing and reduce scarring. Xometry, an online digital marketplace for on-
demand manufacturing, including AM, acquired Thomas, a veteran
business-to-business industrial online information supplier. The
acquisition price was $300 million in cash and stock.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In January 2022, Ultra Safe Nuclear of Seattle obtained a license for a

method to additively manufacture metal parts for use in nuclear reactors.
The process was developed at ORNL and will be used to make high-
performance parts in silicon carbide.
Also in January, Materialise partnered with Primaeam Solutions, an Indian

service provider, to open a 930-m2 (10,000-ft2) facility. Wenext, an AM
service provider based in Shenzen, China, acquired 30 metal PBF systems
from Hanbang 3D (HBD). The Chinese manufacturer of AM systems was
founded in 2007 and is active primarily in China.
In February 2022, the Indian government released a national strategy for

the development of AM. Among other measures, the plan calls for the
launch of up to 100 AM-related startup companies in the country.
DyeMansion was awarded €15 million from the European Innovation

Council and European Investment Bank. HBD raised $60 million in Series A
funding to continue development and commercialization of its PBF and
hybrid metal AM systems. Other large investments took place in February
2022. For example, ICON, a developer of large machines for construction
applications, raised $185 million in a Series B round.
The same month, the winter Olympics were held in Beijing, China. At the
competition, AM helped teams improve performance. In speed skating, the
Chinese short-track speed skating team used skates with 3D-printed
frames for the blade that were produced by Farsoon. In bobsledding, luge,
and skeleton, BMW helped the German team optimize their shoe spikes to
better grip the ice.
Spikes for Germany’s bobsled team, courtesy of BMW
3D Systems announced the acquisition of Kumovis and Titan Robotics at

the end of February 2022. Kumovis, a German startup, is developing an
MEX platform for medical applications. Titan Robotics is a U.S. company in
Colorado that manufactures large MEX systems.
Near the beginning of March 2022, MakerVerse was announced. As a

digital manufacturing platform, it plans to be a one-stop fulfilment site that
connects industrial customers with service providers. BCN3D released a
new AM process for high-viscosity photopolymers. The process, called
Viscous Lithography Manufacturing, is said to be capable of using two
photopolymers with reduced resin degradation and waste.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In response to the crisis in Ukraine in early March 2022, Sygnis, a Polish

company, created a website to provide free 3D models. Each one is
designed to help people on the ground. Partners include 3DON,
3YOURMIND, Drukarki 3D, Fiberlogy, TeenCrunch, and Spectrum
Filaments.
Eyewash adapter for a water bottle, courtesy of Sygnis
Industry survey Wohlers Associates receives data and insight from industry insiders,
producers of machines and materials, service providers, and others. The
information provided from these sources helps to create unparalleled
breadth and depth of information for this report. It supports the tracking
of the AM industry, estimating its size, and forecasting the future. No other
resource in the AM industry provides this level of information and detail.
The results and takeaways from this report are based on 27 years of
collecting and analyzing data and market intelligence.
For this edition of the report, 117 service providers worldwide responded
to a detailed questionnaire. Also, 114 manufacturers of AM systems (both
industrial and desktop systems) and 29 producers of third-party materials
responded. This extensive body of data was used for this and other
sections of the report. These companies provided information based on
knowledge of their customers and the AM industry. In total, 260 companies
responded to our request for data and information for this edition of the
report.
Of the 117 service providers that responded, 39 are from the U.S., 12 from
Germany, and seven each from India and Italy. Six are from the UK and five
from Canada and Switzerland. Four each are from Belgium, South Africa,
and Sweden, and three each from New Zealand and Turkey. Two each are
from Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Spain. One each is from
Austria, Brazil, Hungary, Israel, Korea, the Netherlands, Portugal, Saudi
Arabia, Taiwan, and Thailand. The following chart shows a breakdown of
the top contributing service providers by country.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Of the 114 system manufacturers that provided data, 22 are from the U.S.,
15 from Germany, and 11 from China. Seven are from Italy, six from
Austria, five from Spain, and four each from France and Korea. Three each
are from the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, and Turkey. Two each are from
Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, India, Israel, Japan,
Poland, Switzerland, and Taiwan. One each is from Argentina, Brazil,
Colombia, Finland, Iran, Luxembourg, South Africa, and the UK. The
following shows a breakdown of the contributing system manufacturers by
geographic region.
Of the 29 third-party producers of materials for AM, 14 produce metal

feedstock, 11 produce polymer feedstock, and four produce both.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Applications New applications of AM are emerging as processes, materials, and

software tools evolve. When 3D printing was initially commercialized, it
was called rapid prototyping, reflective of the technology’s main
application. Over the past two decades, AM has been used increasingly
for production and tooling applications.
For this edition of the report, service providers were asked, “How do
your customers use the AM parts you provide?” (See the previous
section titled “Industry survey” for the location of these companies.)
System manufacturers were asked, “How do your customers use the
parts built on your systems?” The survey included the following
options:
Prototyping
▪ Cosmetic/appearance and presentation models and visual aids
▪ Functional parts for engineering fit and function testing, assembly, etc.
Tooling
▪ Polymer and sand patterns, cores, and molds
▪ Metal molds/dies created directly on metal AM systems
▪ Jigs, fixtures, drill/cutting guides, gauges, assembly aids, etc.
Final part production
▪ End-use parts (sold to and used by a final customer)
Education/research
Other
The following chart shows how organizations are using industrial AM

systems for a range of applications.
Prototyping Concept modeling and prototyping were the first applications of AM. The
following image is the first 3D-printed part sent to Wohlers Associates. It
is a model of an automotive distributor cap, built by 3D Systems in 1987,
about a year before commercial (non-beta) machine sales began. Today’s
automobiles have electronic ignition and do not use a distributor to
connect the sparkplug wires to the rotor. What has not changed over the
years is the use of AM to create prototypes quickly. The quality of 3D-
printed models and prototypes has improved significantly with time.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Prototype of an automotive distributor cap produced

in 1987 using VPP, courtesy of 3D Systems
Service providers and system manufacturers reported that cosmetic

models represent 9.8% of all applications. They are used to communicate
design intent and clarify ambiguities from computer models and
engineering drawings. They are also used for presentation at meetings and
events.
The availability of a rapidly produced prototype can help communicate a

concept efficiently and effectively. This is particularly helpful for consumer
products, architectural projects, and surgical planning. The following is an
image of the Bluetooth speakers concept created by Priority Designs. Using
AM, five variations were printed overnight for review by designers and
customers.
Full-color 3D-printed prototype speakers,

courtesy of Priority Designs
Functional prototypes are generally created to test form, fit, and function.
They represent 24.4% of applications. These models help remove
ambiguity and abstraction by physically demonstrating an assembly and
use. They often help validate designs and identify issues with tolerance, fit,
alignment, and function before the final parts are manufactured.
Identifying these issues at an early stage can save thousands or even
millions of dollars in redesign, tooling costs, and scrap.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Thread tapping of a polymer AM part to test alignment

and functionality, courtesy of MakerBot
Prototypes are critical in product development. The following is an image

of a 3D-printed concept tire from Michelin. It is a full-size and fully
functional tire. While the company has not said if or when the tire will be
released for commercial use, it has been evaluated on highways, gravel
roads, and in snow.
3D-printed functional prototype of a

car tire, courtesy of Michelin
One of the most exciting developments is how some companies are using
AM for both prototyping and series production applications. 3D-printed
parts initially support prototyping and testing and later are manufactured
for production. One benefit to this approach is using the same process and
material for both prototyping and manufacturing. With most product
development and manufacturing, this does not occur. While prototyping a
design, a company can also test the manufacturing process and workflow,
including methods of post-processing and part inspection.
The following is a suction nozzle designed by Süss & Friends to consolidate

several mechanical and electrical parts. The part was designed and
prototyped, and a small quantity went into production using polymer PBF.
In the prototyping stage, the post-processing technique was changed after
discovering that residual powder was trapped within the device. By
resolving this issue when prototyping, Süss & Friends delivered the
product more quickly.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Suction device prototyped and manufactured using polymer

PBF, courtesy of Baumer and Süss & Friends
Tooling According to ISO/ASTM 52900, prototype tooling includes molds, dies, and
other devices used for prototyping purposes. This type of tooling is also
referred to as “bridge tooling” or “soft tooling.” Included is tooling to test
designs and/or produce end-use parts while final production tooling is
being manufactured. Rapid tooling is intended to produce tools or tooling
parts with reduced lead time compared to conventional manufacturing.
Mold tooling made by MEX, courtesy of DAE Systems
The 3D printing of master patterns for mold creation has been applied for
decades. Any AM technology can be used for this process, but VPP creates
parts that require minimal post-processing. Silicone rubber is poured onto
and around an AM master pattern to create a soft tool used to cast multiple
urethane parts. The casting process may use a two-part thermoset polymer
that mimics the properties of injection-molded thermoplastics.
Silicone rubber tooling and urethane casting, also referred to as vacuum

casting, have been used for decades to produce prototype, pre-production,
and even production parts in relatively low volumes. The production
quantities vary depending on the features of the part and durability of the
mold. The following image shows a molded part using AM for the master
pattern.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D-printed master pattern (left), silicone mold (center),

and final part (right), courtesy of SioCast
It is possible to 3D print inserts for relatively simple, single-cavity plastic

injection molds. The mold can be used to create parts using the final
production material prior to investing in expensive, multi-cavity steel
tooling. By 3D printing mold inserts directly, companies can iterate quickly
and optimize a design before producing the final tooling.
The following image shows a four-part mold assembly in an injection-

molding press. The mold inserts, in orange, were produced in a ceramic-
filled polymer using a VPP system from Fortify. The molded parts were
created for DaMarini Sports to prototype a new baseball bat cap. Twenty
parts in different materials were produced for design validation and
testing.
3D-printed tooling in orange (left and center) and injection-molded

parts (right), courtesy of DaMarini Sports and Fortify
The use of AM to produce plastic injection molds supports the option of

including conformal cooling channels. These channels follow the shape of
the cavity to better remove heat from a tool than straight gun-drilled
channels. The result is shorter molding cycle times, extended tool life, and
better part quality. The following image shows conformal-cooling
channels, which could only be created by AM. The mold design reduced
cycle time by 24%.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
CAD data of 3D-printed tooling with complex conformal cooling

channels, courtesy of Kirchheim and Katrodiya
AM can also be used to produce other types of tools, including jigs, fixtures,
templates, gauges, and drill and cutting guides. These tools are typically
geometrically complex and made in low quantities, making AM a good fit.
This type of tooling can be expensive and time consuming to produce using
conventional methods. Medical cutting and drilling guides follow organic
contours and are difficult to produce economically using conventional
manufacturing.
Custom AM dental implant drill guide, courtesy of Think3D
AM is also used to produce patterns for metal investment casting. This

process eliminates the need to manufacture expensive and time-
consuming wax pattern tooling. Several AM materials can be melted or
burned out of a ceramic and stucco shell for investment casting. VPP and
material jetting (MJT) processes have become a staple in the jewelry
industry for this application.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D-printed wax pattern being attached to an investment casting tree (left) and
final metal necklace (right), courtesy of Sergio Zenere and DWS Systems
BJT can produce molds and cores for sand casting. The following image
shows a large 3D-printed sand mold. Metal-casting processes are explained
in detail at wohlersassociates.com/castmetal2022.pdf.
3D-printed sand core for large metal casting,

courtesy of Hoosier Pattern
Final part production Arguably the most interesting application of AM is producing final parts.
It represents 33.7% of all AM applications, based on research by Wohlers
Associates. AM can be used for short-run production using polymers,
composites, metals, ceramics, and biomaterials.
Within the aerospace industry, GE Aviation is using metal AM to

manufacture part of the fuel nozzle for the LEAP gas turbine aircraft
engine. Consumer products include eyewear, footwear, and many other
products used daily. The following image shows a pair of eyeglass frames
3D printed in titanium. Today, most 3D-printed consumer products are
more expensive than their conventionally manufactured counterparts.
3D-printed titanium eyeglass frames, courtesy of Hoet
The following part is a 3D-printed brake rotor for the Dodge Challenger
Hellcat created by Ceramic Disc Technology. The company uses lattice
structures to optimize performance. The rotor weight was reduced by
62%, coupled with a thermal conductivity improvement of five times
compared to a standard cast-iron brake rotor.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Ceramic-aluminum brake rotor before finishing,

courtesy of Ceramic Disc Technology
Many more examples of final part production are found in Part 4 and other
places throughout this report.
Additional applications Exciting and unanticipated applications of AM are appearing regularly.

NASA and the European Space Agency have successfully tested the making
of parts by MEX on the International Space Station. They are also
investigating the use of metal AM in space.
Several food 3D printers for candy and vegetarian protein alternatives

have been on the market for years. 3D bioprinting has been a research
topic for more than 25 years, but it has been slow in transitioning to the
commercial sector. The following image shows 3D-printed collagen.
Collagen (red) and polymer mold (green) created

with AM, courtesy of Advanced Solutions
The following image shows a portable toilet with major parts 3D printed
from recycled plastics. One was produced and used at a construction site.
Many additional applications of AM are found throughout this report.
3D-printed porta potty, courtesy of To.org

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Industries Companies were asked to indicate which industries they serve and the
approximate revenues (as a percentage) they receive from each. (See the
previous section titled “Industry survey” for details on the companies
that received the questionnaire and their location.) The following bar
graph shows the results. The leading industrial sector is aerospace,
followed by medical/dental and automotive. The “Other” category
includes mining, chemicals, water treatment, timber/paper, and various
other industries that do not fit into the named categories.
Aerospace The aerospace industry was an early adopter of AM. Boeing and Bell
Helicopter began to use polymer AM parts for non-structural production
applications in the mid-1990s. Airbus, GE Aviation, Honeywell Aerospace,
Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman are also major users of AM.
The European Space Agency, NASA, Relativity Space, and SpaceX are
using AM to produce igniters, injectors, combustion chambers, and fuel
tanks for rockets.
Most commercial aircraft have 3D-printed parts, but they are not visible in
the cabin. They include airducts, brackets, clips, and devices to secure
wires and cables. According to Melissa Orme, vice president of additive
manufacturing at Boeing, the company has more than 70,000 AM parts
flying on commercial and military aircraft and satellites.
3D-printed gearbox for the Chinook military

helicopter, courtesy of Boeing

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Materialise, a Belgium company, gained certification to 3D print polymer

aerospace parts in 2015. The company continues to grow its capabilities.
In 2021, the company reported producing an estimated 26,000 parts for
the Airbus A350 fleet. The production consisted of 100 different flight-
ready parts.
Deutsche Aircraft will relaunch the dual propeller 328 regional aircraft in
2024. The company is working with Materialise prior to its release to
optimize spare parts for AM. The following image shows a polymer
housing with integrated snap-fittings made by PBF. Deutsche Aircraft is
planning to use AM to reduce spare part inventory.
Flight-ready snap-fit polymer part for Deutsche

328 aircraft, courtesy of Materialise
AM is well suited for aerospace applications. Reducing the weight of a part,

even by a small amount, can save a company thousands of dollars in fuel
costs. AM can also produce complex shapes and geometric features to
improve efficiency and performance.
GE Aviation has been a trailblazer in the aerospace industry for using AM
to produce final parts. Boeing claims that using AM to produce parts for its
787 Dreamliner is saving $2–3 million per aircraft over its lifespan.
Conventional parts (dark) versus alternative AM parts (light) show

the design freedom provided by AM, courtesy of Boeing
Boeing was one of the first major aircraft manufacturers to use AM for final
part production. Tens of thousands of polymer PBF parts are installed on
commercial and military aircraft. The company has worked with Stratasys
on solutions for producing large-scale MEX parts. In October 2020, Boeing
qualified the Antero 800NA polyetherketoneketone (PEKK)-based
thermoplastic from Stratasys for flight-ready parts.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Air duct made from Antero 800NA,

courtesy of Stratasys
APWorks, an Airbus company, is using AM to create structural heat

exchangers for electric propulsion systems. The following image shows a
prototype heat exchanger that increases efficiency by 30%.
Section of a prototype heat exchanger,

courtesy of APWorks
Boom Supersonic, a manufacturer of supersonic commercial aircraft, is

using AM for prototyping, tooling, and final parts. In 2021, United Airlines
agreed to purchase 15 Overture aircraft from the company once it meets
safety requirements, with the option of buying 35 additional aircraft. The
Overture is not planned to be released until 2025 and is anticipated to
have commercial passengers by 2029. The company has revealed its
smaller XB-1 supersonic aircraft and will begin flight testing in 2022.
To assemble the XB-1 aircraft, Boom Supersonic 3D-printed 700 MEX drill
guides. The following image illustrates how the company uses these
devices while assembling the fuselage. The company claims that 3D
printing a typical drill block in-house shortens lead time from weeks to
days and reduces material cost by about $3,700.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Individual drill guides on the XB-1 supersonic aircraft

fuselage, courtesy of Boom Supersonic
Relativity Space is a California aerospace startup working to 3D print an

entire rocket, including the fuselage, engines, and fuel tanks. The company
designed a proprietary large-scale DED system called Stargate. The co-
founder and CEO, Tim Ellis, said the company had designed a new version
of the Stargate system that can print 10 times faster than its predecessor.
The first Terran 1 rocket test launch is scheduled for early 2022. The
rocket has a payload capacity of 1,250 kg (2,755 lbs) to low-earth orbit.
Stargate DED system printing the Terran 1

fuselage, courtesy of Relativity Space
AM is increasingly being used for complex rocket engine parts. Conformal

cooling channels can be integrated into the design. The part count to create
the engine can also be reduced drastically. In August 2021, Launcher, a
California startup, successfully tested its E-2 rocket engine. The main parts
were printed on a metal PBF system from EOS. It can produce thrust up to
99,640 N (22,400 lbf) at sea level. The company claims the E-2 engine has
the largest single-part chamber of any liquid rocket engine.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
E-2 Rocket engine (left) and test-fired

demonstration (right), courtesy of Launcher
Optisys, founded in 2016, is a microantenna provider using AM to create

high-performance aerospace parts. The following image shows two
aluminum antenna feeds manufactured using PBF. An antenna feed
connects an antenna to a transmitter or receiver. The larger of the two is
created with specific design parameters set by the customer. The smaller
part was built and tested at a higher frequency. Scaling down the design
supports more iterations, is faster to turn around, and reduces costs for
concept validation. Optisys has created a library of antenna parts designed
for AM, resulting in shorter design and testing cycles.
Radio frequency antenna feeds, courtesy of Optisys
Medical Every human body is different, yet most medical devices are currently
by Andy Christensen made in standard sizes. AM offers new methods and possibilities in
and Nicole Wake medical device design and production. Medical applications of AM
continue to develop and grow, particularly for personalized batches and
complex designs. As a result, medical applications of AM are widespread
in hospitals and the medical device industry.
Hospital- or clinic-based manufacturing, also called point-of-care (POC)

manufacturing, is developing rapidly. With POC manufacturing, hospitals
or individual physicians produce patient-matched devices. Typically, it
occurs in a hospital or at a physician’s office. AM plays a key role in POC
manufacturing because of its inherent capability to produce highly
personalized products.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Collaboration at POC between surgeon and radiologist using

anatomic models for surgical planning, courtesy of
the Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minnesota
Patient-specific AM applications include anatomical modeling, virtual

surgical planning and templating, and implants. 3D-printed anatomical
modeling has proved very beneficial and has been shown to positively
impact patient care for many clinical applications.
Anatomical model produced using BJT showing

distal femur (white) with growth plate (yellow),
tumor (purple lattice), nerve (green), vein (blue),
and artery (red), courtesy of Nicole Wake
Physical anatomical models are produced after converting volumetric

medical imaging data into a suitable 3D-printing file format, such as STL or
OBJ. For more information on medical imaging and post-processing, see
Part 4.
3D-printed anatomical models are typically created at full scale and used
by surgeons before and during surgery. According to surgeons, these
models:
▪ Support better visualization of complex anatomy before surgery

▪ Help to prepare and refine surgical plans
▪ Permit physical simulation of the surgical procedure on the model

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
▪ Give more confidence to the surgical team

▪ Provide a reference guide during surgery to understand anatomy and aid
the doctors during a surgical procedure
▪ Offer a visual aid to the patient and family for increased understanding
of anatomy and disease, thereby improving informed consent for
surgical procedures
Heart surgeon reviews a multi-color model of a child’s

heart before going into the operating room,
courtesy of Rady Children’s Hospital
Virtual surgical planning and templating is an important application of AM.

Using medical images, accurate surgical planning can be performed
virtually before the plan is executed in the operating room. Surgical guides,
templates, and models can be designed and produced by AM based on the
plan. This technique is commonly used for corrective osteotomies,
replacing a removed tumor with a “graft,” and total joint replacements.
Tooth-borne surgical guide used in maxillofacial surgery

to guide a predetermined cutting plane, courtesy of Brian
Farrell and Carolinas Center for Oral and Facial Surgery
3D-printed anatomical models have supported the production of patient-

matched implants for more than 20 years. These cases involved designing
a patient-specific implant based on medical imaging data. Today, the
device is designed in a digital environment. The implant itself may be

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
produced using AM or conventional manufacturing, but the associated

fixtures, molds, and jigs are often made by 3D printing. Common
applications for personalized implants include:
▪ Neurological surgery—creating a cranioplasty implant to replace

missing bone in the skull
▪ Plastic and reconstructive surgery—implants to augment the shape of
the face or body, typically made from polymers and silicones
▪ Oral and maxillofacial surgery—personalized titanium plates used
following surgery to hold bony segments in a pre-determined shape and
patient-matched implants to replace the temporomandibular joint
▪ Orthopedic surgery—large, typically titanium implants used to replace
missing portions of bone lost to trauma or a tumor
▪ Personalized titanium plates used to hold bony segments into a pre-
determined shape and personalized total-knee-replacement implants for
a relatively small percentage of the overall market
Orthopedic implants used today are made in standard sizes. They are
typically made using traditional manufacturing such as machining,
investment casting, and injection molding. However, a growing number of
polymer and metal medical devices in serial production are being made
using AM. As of February 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
had cleared more than 250 medical devices made by AM, according to a
representative of the FDA’s Additive Manufacturing Working Group.
Personalized titanium cranial implant made using PBF, courtesy

of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
For spinal surgery, a relatively large number of AM products are available.

Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V and cobalt-chrome are commonly used for
orthopedic implant applications. Implant devices are also made using
polymers such as PEKK and polyether ether ketone (PEEK).
The medical device industry uses AM for complex, porous metal structures
that traditional manufacturing cannot create. These structures promote
bone in-growth and are lightweight. They help with stress shielding, which
is the improper transfer of load from surrounding bone. AM is a more
flexible method for manufacturing these parts. The most common
applications for AM in serial implant production are:
▪ Spinal fusion devices (known as spinal cages)—produced in a titanium

alloy or PEKK
▪ Acetabular cups (known as hip cups)—produced in a titanium alloy

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
▪ Tibial baseplates, the tibial portion of a total knee replacement—

produced in a titanium alloy with the bearing surface being
manufactured conventionally in polyethylene
▪ Gap-filling wedges for extremities—produced in a titanium alloy
Titanium tibial baseplate, courtesy of Stryker
Dentistry The dental industry has been a sector with new applications for many
years. AM is well suited for dentistry because the parts are small,
complex, custom, and of high value. The design and service requirements
of 3D-printed dental parts can vary widely for each application.
The creation and availability of high-quality 3D model data have driven the
adoption of AM in the dental community. Data can be acquired from dental
forms, intraoral scans, and radiological imaging of the patient’s jaw.
Metal is the preferred material for copings, which serve as the basis for
crowns and bridges. Metal is also used for dental prosthetics, such as
partial denture frames. The most common material is cobalt-chrome alloy,
a material well known for its strength, corrosion resistance, and
biocompatibility. Printed cobalt-chrome copings form the base of ceramic
restorations. Millions of metal copings are produced by AM annually.
Four-unit dental coping shown in three processing steps: before

post-processing (right), after post-processing (front left),
and with a veneer (rear), courtesy of EOS
Many metal PBF system manufacturers offer machines with small build
volumes optimized for dental applications. They include 3D Systems, EOS,
GE Additive, Sisma, SLM Solutions, and Trumpf. Chinese metal PBF
manufacturers Bright Laser Technologies, Eplus 3D, and Longyuan offer
small-volume systems at prices that compete with machines manufactured
in other parts of the world.
Most metal AM machines in dentistry are housed and operated by large

dental labs or service centers that receive orders from small labs and
clinics. Dental labs are often small companies that cannot justify the costs

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
associated with purchasing and operating a metal printer. As a result,

demand for metal printers in dentistry is limited. Some metal PBF system
manufacturers believe the market is saturated, but others argue it is still in
its early days. As the cost of machines, materials, and parts declines, the
market for metal parts in dentistry will increase.
A growing trend in some countries is the preference of ceramic over metal

copings. However, ceramic copings and fixtures are more expensive than
cobalt-chrome. As a result, ceramic prosthetics have remained a small
niche market. The leading digital technology for crown production is
milling, which is more accurate and less expensive than 3D-printed
ceramics.
In some instances, 3D printing can produce thin-walled ceramic

reconstructions, such as minimally invasive occlusal veneers. Even so, AM
veneer production is limited in practice. One of the limitations of printed
ceramic crowns is that they lack depth of color, making them unsuitable
aesthetically, except as molar restorations in the back of the mouth.
Lithoz offers a VPP system that uses zirconia for dental applications. XJet
produces an MJT system that prints ceramic materials using its
nanoparticle process.
Ceramic dental crown, courtesy of Lithoz
Printing dental parts in wax or a wax-like material supports the production

of metal fixtures using a lost-wax, investment-casting process. These
include partial denture frames. 3D Systems, DWS, ETEC (formerly
Envisiontec), and Formlabs offer castable materials for dental applications.
The method requires post-processing to produce the final part. Parts may
be produced using the same or similar materials and processes that dental
laboratories have used for decades. Partial dentures can be directly printed
on metal PBF systems.
Cast partial denture (left) and 3D-printed model (right),

courtesy of SSK Dental and ETEC

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
An early application of AM in dentistry was the production of patient-

specific surgical drill guides. The guide provides the optimum location and
orientation of a hole to be drilled for implant placement. Many companies
offer software and services to plan and manufacture these devices.
3D-printed implant surgical guide,

courtesy of Insights Diagnostic
Dental implants are also being 3D printed using ceramic VPP. The
3DCeram Sinto C3600 Ultimate ceramic 3D printer has a build volume of
600 x 600 x 300 mm (23.6 x 23.6 x 11.8 in). It was designed to manufacture
large parts and for production applications. The following image shows
three ceramic implants. With implants being so small, 3DCeram Sinto can
manufacture 1,823 of them in a 37.4-hour build. The parts require
debinding and sintering.
Dental implants (left) and 1,823 of them on the C3600 digital

build tray (right), courtesy of 3DCeram Sinto
Dental models are one of the most popular applications of AM in dentistry.

Countless companies print dental models used by laboratories to plan
traditional restorations. These models can be printed on a range of AM
systems, with VPP generally being the preferred platform.
Dental model, courtesy of ETEC
One of the most successful applications of AM in dentistry is the

production of orthodontic aligners. They are manufactured by
thermoforming thin plastic sheets over unique patterns produced by AM.
The leader in this space is Align Technology, which produces the Invisalign

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
brand of aligners with the help of VPP systems from 3D Systems. As of

early 2022, Align Technology was producing about 700,000 aligners per
day, according to Brian Drab of William Blair & Company.
A relatively new competitor to Align Technology is SmileDirectClub. The

company uses more than 60 HP Jet Fusion systems to produce patterns for
aligners. A few smaller providers have also entered the market. In 2021,
LuxCreo and Graphy released the direct 3D printing of dental aligners
using VPP. Historically, materials for VPP have not had the strength, flex,
and transparency properties to print aligners directly. As of early 2022,
Graphy is the only company to have received FDA clearance for this
application.
3D-printed aligners, courtesy of LuxCreo
Automotive The automotive sector was one of the earliest users of AM for
prototyping. Automotive companies continue to use AM for design
validation, fit and function testing, and some types of tooling. The
sector’s use of AM for final part production is mostly limited to low
production volumes. BJT system manufacturers have claimed that the
technology will help penetrate the automotive market for series
production parts. Wohlers Associates has seen few examples of this,
likely due to repeatability, dimensional accuracy, and reliability
requirements.
Designing a new vehicle can take years to go from concept to production.

AM is effective in helping to shorten this development cycle. In 2021,
Honda R&D partnered with WASP to 3D print a model of its new electric
motorcycle. By 3D printing modeling clay, a rough shape was created,
reworked by hand, and then finished. After the design was finalized, WASP
could reuse the molded clay for future builds.
Modeling clay being 3D printed (left) and finished

by hand (right), courtesy of WASP
General Motors (GM) is using AM for tooling. A hemming tool is used to

attach sheet metal for the Chevrolet Equinox fender panel. The traditional
tooling requires a long lead time and lift assistance for positioning.
Working with Stratasys, GM manufactured a tool using ASA thermoplastic
shown in the following image. Using AM, the lead time for the tool was

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
reduced by more than 70%. The 3D-printed tool weighs 15 kg (33 lbs),
compared to 34 kg (75 lbs) for the original, eliminating the need for lift
assistance.
Hemming tool for the Chevrolet Equinox fender,

courtesy of GM and Stratasys
The 2022 Cadillac Blackwing V-series automobile is GM’s first use of AM at

a production scale. This is possible because the company does not plan to
manufacture more than 3,000 units of the CT4-V and CT5-V models,
combined. The CT4-V Blackwing sports sedan has a base price starting at
about $59,000. The following image shows 3D-printed parts for the
manual-transmission version of the model. Both the automatic- and
manual-transmission models have blue air ducts made in PA12 on an HP
Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) system. An aluminum bracket was made using PBF
and designed to secure a wiring harness to the manual transmission. A
gear shifter medallion was made in stainless steel using BJT. The company
claims that the medallion dissipates heat on a hot day through conductive
fins that were designed into the part.
Aluminum bracket (left, metallic), air ducts (middle, blue), and shifter medallion (right)
for 2022 Cadillac Blackwing V-series vehicle, courtesy of GM
As of January 2022, the BMW Group has produced more than 350,000
series production parts using AM. This is in partnership with Germany’s
Federal Ministry of Education and Research project called Industrialisation
and Digitalisation of AM for Automotive Series Processes. The goal is to
produce at least 50,000 parts annually and 10,000 or more spare parts.
MINI, a part of the BMW Group, used 3D printing to produce the one-off
MINI STRIP, co-created with Paul Smith, a British icon. The car’s front and
rear aprons (bottom perimeter), shown in the following image, were 3D
printed using a large-scale MEX system. The layer lines were left
unsmoothed for visual effect.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D-printed front and rear apron of the MINI STRIP

co-created with Paul Smith, courtesy of BMW
Porsche, a part of the Volkswagen Group, released a bucket seat with a 3D-
printed section below the upholstery. It is shown in the following image.
Using AM, the company claims the seat will experience little material
fatigue, making it perform better for longer. The bucket seat can be added
to the Boxster, Cayman, and 911 models. In 2022, the company is expected
to offer the seat as a standard upgrade. Customers can choose between
soft, medium, and hard stiffness.
Sports car bucket seat, courtesy of Porsche
Bugatti is pushing performance in the automotive industry with the help of

AM. The following image shows a pushrod for the front suspension of a
Bugatti Bolide hypercar. The part is made in titanium and has a variable
wall thickness of 0.5–1.0 mm (0.02–0.04 in) with internal lattice
structures. It can withstand a breaking force of up to 36,866 N (8,288 lbs)
and weighs only 100 g (0.22 lbs). Bugatti uses AM in other parts of the car
to help create a lightweight, high-performance vehicle.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Pushrod for Bugatti Bolide front suspension,

courtesy of Bugatti and Top Speed
In racing, reducing the weight of a vehicle can provide an advantage. For

the DXX buggy by Dumas, an off-road racing vehicle, AM was leveraged for
the gear lever and pedals. All parts were designed to be light in weight
using topology optimization and were printed in titanium. The gear lever
was personalized to fit the driver’s hand. Weight was reduced by 60%
compared to a conventionally manufactured part. The pedals were
optimized, given the force applied to them. The brake pedal includes more
material because of the force applied to it during a race. On average, the
pedals are 42% lighter than their conventional counterparts.
Titanium gear lever (left) and pedals (right) for

the DXX buggy, courtesy of Poly-Shape
The automotive industry is using AM to make assembly work safer, easier,

faster, and less expensive. The following image shows a collection of 3D-
printed parts used on a Nissan assembly line. The drill positioning guide
helps an operator create holes in the correct location. It was made in
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and costs €21.50 to print. The tool
consists of five separate parts, which took about 75 hours to print. The car
logo positioning jig was printed in 12 hours and costs €3.45. It helps an
operator position the vehicle’s logo. The hood support tool helps
automatically open and close the hood during assembly. It was printed in
10 hours and costs €2.65.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Drill positioning guide (top), car logo positioning jig (bottom, left), and
hood support tool (bottom, right), courtesy of Nissan and BCN3D
Consumer products Consumer goods cover a broad range of products, including personal
electronics, appliances, eyewear, home decor, apparel, and children’s
toys. These industries typically produce parts in large volumes, and
product life cycles are relatively short. 3D-printed jewelry, personal
accessories, lighting designs, and sculptures are available online for
anyone to purchase.
AM accelerates product development by supporting rapid design

optimization and iteration. Companies are using AM to create products
with new features. The following image shows the Cell Alpha triphonic
speaker from Syng. The speaker can precisely project sound to a desired
location within a room using the 3D-printed circular array.
Triphonic speakers, courtesy of Syng
Several companies are using AM to produce products beyond the

capabilities of conventional design and manufacturing processes. In 2017,
Adidas announced the Futurecraft running shoe with a 3D-printed

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
midsole. In 2021, the company released the 4DFWD, which it claims

provides 23% more cushioning compared to previous versions of the 3D-
printed midsole.
The following images show a woman’s shoe that is 100% recyclable. The
company uses MJF from HP and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) from
BASF to produce the insert shown in the image on the left. Using
traditional shoe making techniques, leather is attached to the sole without
glue, making recycling easier. The wood-like appearance is created using
hydrographics.
TPU insert (left) for the Grace woman’s shoe (right), courtesy of Hilos
Electric bicycles and scooters have increased in popularity in urban

environments over the past few years. Scotsman, a California company, is
creating personalized electric scooters with the help of carbon fiber. When
a scooter is purchased, a customer inputs their height, weight, wingspan,
shoulder width, inseam, and foot length. The body, stem, and handlebars of
the scooter are 3D printed to a customer’s specifications.
Personalized carbon-fiber scooters,

courtesy of Scotsman
Athletic equipment has adopted AM for mass customization and improved

performance. In 2021, Rawlings released the REV1X baseball glove in
partnership with Carbon. The glove is 30% lighter and has twice the
stiffness-to-weight ratio compared to conventional baseball gloves.
Athos, a Spanish startup, is using MJF from HP to produce personalized

climbing shoes from a 3D scan of a customer’s feet. As of February 2022,
the product was still in beta testing.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Personalized climbing shoes, courtesy of Athos
Printed circuit boards made by 3D printing have not yet reached

commercial viability, but electronic housings have. BRINC is using MEX
from Markforged to manufacture its drone for first responders. The
company uses the Onyx material, which is Markforged’s carbon-fiber-filled
nylon, because it is lightweight and relatively durable compared to
standard MEX materials.
Drone for first responders, courtesy of BRINC
For home decor, many companies are turning to AM to create intricate

designs. Designer Daniel Arsham worked with Kohler, a U.S. manufacturing
company, to design and 3D print a functioning bathroom sink out of
ceramic. It was manufactured as a limited-edition product in a quantity of
99 units.
IKEA has been working with 3D printing for many years for prototypes and
experimental projects. In 2021, the company introduced FLAMTRÄD, a line
of decorative 3D-printed products shown in the following image. These
products are available for purchase at IKEA’s Germany website.
3D-printed home decor (black), courtesy of IKEA
Many other consumer products are using AM. Aectual, a Dutch company, is
using MEX to create large-scale decor and room dividers. For some time,
designers have used 3D-printed parts for light fixtures, owing to their
combination of optical properties and freeform shapes. The following
image shows a hanging lighting feature designed by FutureWave and made
using recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The organic shape
distorts the LED lighting.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Recycled PET lighting fixture, courtesy of FutureWave
Fitz Frames uses a mobile phone app to design custom-fit eyewear

produced with AM. Phone Skope uses VPP to manufacture digiscoping
adaptors, a device to connect a phone camera to a telescope or microscope.
The adaptor design is anticipated to change frequently as new phones
become available. The company saves money on expensive retooling with
the help of 3D printing.
Education and AM has become a mainstay within education and research. Many
academic research universities, colleges, high schools, and middle schools have access to
low-cost 3D printers for students. Educators are learning how to use AM
to support science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics.
3D printing is used in schools to teach the basics of engineering and AM.

Students can learn how to use simple CAD software and watch their parts
being built. AM can provide models for students to understand the real
world better.
Molecular models for organic chemistry lectures and exercises,

courtesy of Felix Lederle and Eike Hübner
At universities and national laboratories, AM is being used for R&D. The

following image from Auburn University shows fundamental research on
additive nanomanufacturing of multi-material and multi-functional
electronics and sensors. The process ablates materials—both metals and
non-metals—to create nanoparticle feedstock on demand. A second laser
sinters the powder as it strikes the build surface. The working prototype
can print on standard paper.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Multi-material 3D printer for electronics,

courtesy of Auburn University
Researchers at the University of Arizona are using 3D printing to make

wearable sensors. The device is designed using a 3D scan of the area of the
body where the sensor is to be fitted. The following image shows a sensor
produced using AM with electronics embedded in the part for data
collection.
Wearable sensor, courtesy of Philipp Gutruf
Researchers at the National University of Singapore’s Center for AM are

studying the 3D printing of implants using coral as the feedstock. Bone
implants are historically made from a patient’s bone, a cadaver, or a
synthetic substitute. Coral-cultured powder was supplied by Popeye
Marine Biotechnology in Taiwan. The main challenge for the researchers
was ensuring the implant maintains its shape and porosity long enough for
natural bone to form and grow.
Implants made from coral, courtesy of Lu

Wen Feng and Chang Soon Yee
The University of Idaho received a $4 million grant from the National

Science Foundation in September 2021. Research is aimed at developing a
process for upcycling wood waste into 3D-printed construction material.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Researchers at Stanford University and the University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill developed a 3D-printed patch to deliver vaccines. They claim
this delivery system offers greater protection, compared to conventional
delivery methods. The patches were produced on a VPP system from
Carbon.
Microneedle patch for delivering vaccines, courtesy of

University of North Carolina and Stanford University
GE Research has partnered with the University of California at Berkeley

and the University of South Alabama. The partnership is focused on
creating a system to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The
work involves the development of a heat exchanger, shown in the
following image. The project is using AM for complex features. It is funded
by a two-year, $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Prototype heat exchanger made using

metal AM, courtesy of GE Research
AM is indeed an important subject of research. An extensive and detailed

list of AM activities at academic institutions can be found in Part 6 of this
report.
Power and energy The power and energy sector represents technologies used to generate
and transfer power from natural resources. This includes oil, gas, wind,
solar, and other sources. The industry has been quietly adopting AM for
the past several years.
Many AM applications have been identified in power and energy. They

include test parts, full-color models, functional prototypes, part repair,
spare parts, inventory reduction, and off-shore remote manufacturing.
Specific end-use parts have been identified for production by AM that
include rotors, stators, mud motors, complex low-volume units, and
fixtures.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
As 3D printing moves toward wider adoption in the power and energy

sector, several factors will be considered. Among them are liability issues,
part reliability, volatility of oil prices, production speed, certification,
intellectual property, and material variability. The availability of a skilled
workforce familiar with AM is also important.
AM is being adopted by the power and energy sector to increase efficiency

and decrease downtime. The following image shows a guide vane from
Siemens Energy. It directs the kinetic energy of the fluid toward the runner
blade at the optimal angle. The nickel-based superalloy part was printed in
6.25 hours. The company claims the AM part will last two times longer
than a conventionally manufactured guide vane.
AM guide vane, courtesy of Siemens Energy
The Shell Technology Centre in Amsterdam, Netherlands, has been using

AM for the past five years to make unique parts for the company’s
worldwide operations. The company has retrained several technicians to
help meet demand. One example is a small pressure vessel designed to
withstand pressure up to 220 bar (3,200 psi). According to the company, it
was the first in-house 3D-printed part in Europe to receive certification
from a third-party authority.
Pressure vessel and test specimens,

courtesy of Shell Technology Centre

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Within oil and gas, parts require high precision and must handle harsh
environments. EnergyX, formerly known as Bakke Oil Tools, has certified
an Inconel 718 nozzle part made by AM. It is used as part of a downhole
cleanout tool, as seen in the following image. It is the first 3D-printed part
from EnergyX to become fully certified.
Nozzle prior to being cut from build plate (left) and

assembled as part of a downhole cleanout
tool (right), courtesy of EnergyX
Transporting oil can be challenging and costly. The following image shows
a spare part centrifugal pump shaft for the ConocoPhillips Polar Endeavor
oil tanker. The spare part was made by a consortium including 3D
Metalforge, the American Bureau of Shipping, and Sembcorp Marine. The
part passed on-board testing and were inspected remotely by ABS. The
consortium also tested a nozzle for the brine/air ejector and a flexible
coupling for a sanitation pump.
Centrifugal pump shaft for oil tanker, courtesy

of American Bureau of Shipping
Vestas, a Danish manufacturer of wind turbines, is using AM to support the

production of turbine blades up to 67 m (220 ft) in length. The company
worked with Avid Product Development to develop and 3D print the clamp
tool shown in the following image. It is used to assist in rotation of a blade
from a horizontal to a vertical position. The parts were built in TPU in 23
hours on an HP Jet Fusion machine. Using AM reduced clamp-tool
production time by 98%, compared to injection molding, according to
Vestas.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Clamp used to rotate wind turbine blades (left)

and put to work (right), courtesy of Vestas
At the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), researchers

created a 13 m (43 ft) wind turbine blade prototype made in
thermoplastic. Most traditional blades are made by connecting two
fiberglass parts with a thermoset resin. With thermoplastic, the blade can
be recycled more easily, and the thermoplastic can be reused for 3D
printing. This approach has the potential to reduce the blade weight, cost,
and lead time.
Testing a thermoplastic turbine blade, courtesy of NREL
Government and military Globally, governments and branches of the military are investing in AM
research, education, and infrastructure. Government and military
applications typically involve relatively low volumes of parts. Interest in
AM is driven by the need for less costly spare parts, getting parts more
quickly, custom product design, and personalization.
The Australian government has partnered with SPEE3D to test military

parts manufactured using the company’s cold spray AM process. The
following image shows an exhaust pipe for an M113 armored vehicle. The
part was designed, printed, tested, and installed in the Australian outback
as part of a training scenario. It was printed in 78 minutes using aluminum
bronze feedstock, and minimal post-processing was required. The metal
deposition rate was 0.1 kg (0.22 lbs) per minute.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Armored vehicle exhaust printed with a

cold spray process, courtesy of the
Australian Army and SPEE3D
SAAB, a Swedish aerospace and defense company, tested a 3D-printed

replacement hatch for the JAS 39 Gripen fighter jet in March 2021. The
replacement part was manufactured in polyamide and designed from a 3D
scan of the original part. In 2017, the company co-founded the Additive
Manufacturing Excellence for Industry facility in Karlskoga, Sweden. As of
February 2022, the replacement part for the Gripen fighter jet had not
been certified for flight.
Replacement hatch for the JAS 39 Gripen fighter

jet (white), courtesy of SAAB
The UK government invested £26.4 million ($34.8 million) to develop a

large metal AM system for mass production of aircraft parts. The four-year
project is being led by Renishaw.
Airbus, in partnership with 3D Systems, Hexcel, and nTopology, has

created a new structural 3D-printed bracket system for its X58 drone.
The titanium bracket, shown in the following image, is 30% lighter than a
conventionally manufactured part. Key features are the pins that
structurally join the 3D-printed part to a sheet of carbon fiber with
thermoset resin.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D-printed bracket system for the X58 drone,

courtesy of Airbus and nTopology
The U.S. DOD published its strategy, vision, and goals for AM across all
branches of the military. As a part of the effort, DOD created the Joint
Additive Manufacturing Working Group to focus on implementing its
strategy.
In Bastrop, Texas, the Texas Military Department partnered with ICON to

3D print the walls for a 353-m2 (3,800-ft2) building to house 72 soldiers
during training. Conventional parts and materials were used for the
facility’s roof, ventilation, door, windows, and electricity.
3D-printed walls for a training barracks, courtesy of the

Texas Military Department and ICON
One of the greatest challenges for government and military adoption of AM

is qualifying materials and processes and certifying parts, due to strict
requirements and regulations. The following image is a redesigned
hydraulic clamp for the F-16 fighter jet. It was created in partnership with
nTopology and Origin, which was acquired by Stratasys in December 2020.
Redesigned 3D-printed F-16 hydraulic clamp,

courtesy of Stress Engineering Services
Architectural models The production of architectural models using AM is a mature but

by Charles Overy relatively small industrial segment. Many designers and architectural
professionals have spent their entire careers with access to 3D printing.
Companies that previously outsourced traditional model making or had
moved to purely digital visualization are acquiring low-cost or mid-range
AM printers. Forward-looking firms are acquiring second or third-
generation machines. Architectural parts are used in modelmaking, as
mockups as part of a bid, and in design and development workflows.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The production of scaled models and architectural prototypes has different

requirements compared to industrial AM applications. Scaled-down CAD
data can result in thin-walled sections, which are prone to fail. Typically,
scaled models are a collection of many individual parts and assemblies.
The combination of these factors makes it difficult and costly to generate
3D-printable data that ensures good results. It also requires specialized
workflows and software.
Monochrome interior model of a dental practice showing a

high level of detail, courtesy of KB Architects and Fixie
Some well-established AM system manufacturers have moved away from

platforms designed for prototyping. This has provided an opportunity for
others to develop systems aimed specifically at concept modeling.
In architectural modeling, appearance matters much more than

mechanical properties. Although models are scaled representations, they
still tend to be large and in the range of 0.5 x 1.0 m (19 x 39 in). Many AM
processes are not capable of delivering large parts at a reasonable cost for
concept development.
Architectural models are being produced using large polymer MEX

systems. However, MEX is not ideal because of its relatively slow build
speeds, visible layer lines, and the need for removable support material.
PBF systems are more compatible, and low-cost BJT technology is a
particularly good fit.
Large VPP systems have been in widespread use for many years because
they offer good feature detail, print large parts, and are affordable. Larger
digital light processing (DLP)-based VPP machines are an attractive option.
However, the need to produce and remove many support structures,
coupled with other lengthy post-processing requirements, is limiting their
adoption.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
VPP model of Maynooth University Student Union, courtesy

of Scott Tallon Walker Architects and Fixie
Full-color AM systems have been used widely for architectural models

since the early 2000s. Color MJT systems are still not widely adopted for
these models. This is due to high part cost and the complexity of
processing full color data. Mimaki has two sizes of full-color MJT systems,
which compete with the more mature systems from Stratasys. Despite
poor material properties, including weakness, the ProJet CJP machines
from 3D Systems remain the color standard for architecture due to its high
speed and low part cost.
Full-color 3D-printed model, courtesy of LGM
Low-cost desktop MEX machines and smaller DLP-based VPP systems are a
useful starting point for companies wishing to produce 3D-printed scaled
models. They provide an understanding of the workflow and how AM can
meet challenges. However, these machines are unlikely to provide the
quality and capacity required for substantial commercial applications.
When selecting a low-cost machine, it is important to understand that

some methods of removing support material from overhanging features
will be necessary. Dual-extruder machines that offer soluble supports are
particularly useful. If a company needs fine detail, VPP machines are a
good option, but support removal can be time consuming.
Visualization of complex structures at scale will remain a viable but niche

application in the broader AM market. The requirements for successful
implementation are challenging but achievable. When selecting a system,
consider cost and quality, with an appreciation of the unique requirements
of architectural models. Understanding and planning for the costs of data
preparation is a key to successful implementation.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Construction AM applications in construction continue to advance and mature. Media

by Charles Overy coverage focuses on concrete printing (CP) of residential structures.
However, AM in construction is developing in several directions. This is
in response to economic, labor, and environmental concerns. The
advantages of AM can be applied to construction in ways that resemble
industrial applications. Producers of machines are emerging, and
significant investment is helping to overcome regulatory barriers.
The construction industry is currently hindered by labor shortages, rising

material costs, and outdated techniques. Architectural and building
engineers are adopting digital technologies, similar to the design and
development of electromechanical products. However, the construction
industry has not yet moved to flexible, digital, and automated methods of
fabrication. CP and other digitally driven methods offer some promise for
reducing labor, production times, and material cost.
Environmental imperatives are driving innovation, particularly in

materials development. Production of Portland cement, the key
“ingredient” in concrete, represents 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
Low-carbon-emission building materials suitable for CP are being actively
marketed by major concrete suppliers, and R&D into new formulations is
ongoing. Environmental penalties, including carbon taxes, will negatively
impact the construction industry. Low-carbon-emission cement
formulations and techniques that use less material will be required to meet
financial and regulatory requirements. This represents an opportunity for
AM in construction.
The construction industry is fragmented and widely dispersed, reducing

the likelihood that individual adopters will have the resources to validate
new technologies. Buildings cannot currently be 3D printed in their
entirety. In fact, the parts being printed are a relatively small percentage,
from a value perspective. Buildings are complex structures with plumbing,
electrical fittings, heating/air conditioning, windows, doors, and built-in
features such as cabinetry. CP is presently used only for the walls.
Mighty Buildings focuses on delivering prefabricated auxiliary dwelling

units and small homes using advanced materials and patented 3D-printing
technology with robotic automation. The Oakland, California company
raised $22 million in Series B funding, bringing total investment to more
than $100 million. ICON, an early developer of CP, raised an impressive
$207 million in Series B funding, bringing total investment to more than
$250 million. The funds are being used for R&D and to 3D print parts of
homes.
Studio in Livermore, California, measuring 32.5 m2

(350 ft2), courtesy of Mighty Buildings

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
COBOD has been successful in selling a large platform based on a

traditional cartesian perspective. COBOD printers have been used to build
the walls for a two-story apartment building. CyBe Construction sells
printers that rely on commercially available industrial robots. The systems
are either static or mounted on mobile platforms that move on tracks.
These smaller systems are similar in size to those from Apis Cor (example
shown in the following image) and are much easier to transport and set up.
Concrete 3D printer, courtesy of the Apis Cor
Typically, CP materials are not standard concrete since they do not contain
the typical proportion of stone aggregate. The material may be more
accurately described as mortar. The material must be sufficiently fluid to
flow through an extrusion head, but it must also harden quickly to avoid
slumping under the weight of subsequent layers. Fast setting additives
may impair long-term performance, so printing speed is balanced against
overall material properties.
Major worldwide cement providers, including Cemex, HeidelbergCement,

the Holcim Group, and Sika, have released commercially available mixes
for CP. Several manufacturers and researchers are working on complex
chemistries. They involve injecting drying accelerants at the point of
extrusion, thereby increasing the print speed. Work is ongoing to reduce
the amount of high-carbon-emission Portland cement in CP mixes. The
chemistry must be made more robust so that mixes can include local
materials.
Extruded ready-mix concrete, courtesy

of Cemex and COBOD
Formwork is the structure used to contain a conventional pour of concrete

slurry until it hardens. It is the construction equivalent of tooling,
specifically a mold. The materials and time needed to build the formwork
represent at least 50% of the cost of a concrete pour. Formwork requires
skilled labor, creates waste, and constrains the design. CP eliminates the

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
need for formwork. In theory, the technology can create lightweight

structures by lattice generation and load-optimized designs. Topology
optimization could dramatically improve wall characteristics such as
thermal performance. In the case of the defense industry, it could also
improve protection and survivability.
Commercial application of AM in the construction sector includes

improving conventional manufacturing. Several companies are making 3D-
printed formwork using large-scale polymer MEX systems. Component
sizes of 1 x 1 m (39 x 39 in) are routinely available. Similarly sized BJT
machines are available from Voxeljet, which has been actively marketing
3D-printed concrete formwork solutions to support design freedom.
Large-scale MEX machines are available from Thermwood and Cincinnati.
Both companies offer AM machines dedicated to the construction industry.
Aectual and Branch Technology use multi-axis robots to extrude plastics in

planar and non-planar layers. Aectual has a well-established business
creating pattern structures for custom terrazzo floors. These floors have
been installed for BMW, Disney, and others. Branch Technology has
branded its pavilion structures as BranchMatrix and is building lattice
structures for wall sections. Startup CONCR3DE has developed a business
around using ground stone for commercial BJT systems.
Lattice structure in Nashville, Tennessee,

courtesy of Branch Technology
CP and other AM options for construction are expected to be used for a

wide range of outdoor applications in the future. Examples are park
benches, playgrounds, art, ornamental features, and footbridges. AM
machines will excel at making complex structures and elements of
buildings that are otherwise difficult or too expensive to produce. In all
cases, they will need to produce genuine value and a compelling return on
investment.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Church with curved 3D-printed walls that would otherwise be difficult and
expensive to produce, courtesy of Lake California Community Church
Other industries Many industrial sectors are embracing AM, beyond those described in
previous sections. They include art, awards, advertising, fashion, and
furniture. AM is used for different reasons within each industry. For
example, AM is used to create interesting art that would be difficult or
impossible to create in other ways. AM is used for small production runs
of personalized gifts and awards.
Within the fashion industry, AM is being used to create intricate dresses,

jewelry, and accessories for models. Anouk Wipprecht has worked to
combine robotics and 3D printing to create pieces that move or illuminate.
3D-printed fashion accessory (left) and while

lit (right) at an event in Slovenia,
courtesy of iCAT 2012
Similar to fashion, artists are using 3D modeling and printing to create

one-off creations. They range in size from small pieces of 100 mm (3.9 in)
to ones that are meters in size. The following image shows two 3D-printed
masks designed by Neri Oxman and the Mediated Matter Group. The pieces
were printed in full color on a PolyJet system from Stratasys. The full
collection includes 15 masks.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Masks, courtesy of Neri Oxman, the Mediated

Matter Group, and Yoram Reshef
AM is being used for advertisements, sculptures, and memorials. The

following image shows a memorial torch that measures 28.3 m (93 ft) in
height. It was built to commemorate Al Davis, the late owner of the
Raiders, an American football team. The piece was installed in the Las
Vegas Raiders Stadium and was designed by Dimensional Innovations. The
torch is constructed from more than 225 carbon-fiber-reinforced
polycarbonate composite pieces, 3D printed on a system from Thermwood.
Al Davis memorial, courtesy of Dimensional Innovations
3D printing is used at a smaller scale to create figurines, including action

figures, bobble heads, and toys. The following images show a wedding cake
topper project, which started with 3D scanning. AM supports printing in
full color.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D scanning (left), 3D-printed models in the lab (center),

and custom cake topper at the wedding (right)
3D printing has been used extensively to manufacture personalized gifts

and awards. AM technology makes it possible to quickly and affordably
produce small quantities. The following image shows a trophy for a video
game championship tournament.
Trophies, courtesy of 3D Trophy Factory
New applications of AM are being explored continuously. Access to

inexpensive 3D printing makes it possible for almost anyone to try new
ideas. What we know about the technology and its application is exciting,
but what we do not know about it and its future is even more interesting.
Myths and In the history of AM, many myths, misconceptions, and untruths have
been shared in writing, at events, and in conversations. The following are
misconceptions among those that continue to be shared and believed. Not all are myths,
but rather a misunderstanding of the technology, process, or application.
AM will replace Some have suggested that most products will be made by AM in the future.
The cost of producing AM parts will decline in the coming years, but it will
conventional
likely remain a more expensive option for producing parts in high
manufacturing quantities. This will especially be the case for low-value products with
simple shapes and features. The layer-by-layer nature of AM makes it
relatively slow, which contributes greatly to the cost.
Among the experienced, 3D printing is seen as complementary to

conventional manufacturing. Certain parts can be produced with AM that
are difficult, more expensive, or impossible to produce using conventional

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
manufacturing. They include extraordinarily complex shapes and

structures that may use less material, resulting in lightweight parts. In
some cases, unique microstructural features are possible with AM.
It is possible to produce custom products affordably with AM, especially

those that would be too expensive using conventional methods of
manufacturing. Often, the most cost-competitive process for metal part
production is machining. The guitar body in the following image would be
challenging, if not impossible, to create using conventional manufacturing.
However, the neck, bridge, pickups, tuning heads, and controls of the guitar
are made conventionally.
3D-printed guitar body and conventionally manufactured

parts, courtesy of Olaf Diegel
Complexity is free For years, many have said that AM offers “complexity for free.” It is true that
building parts layer-by-layer is largely independent of part complexity, but
other elements of the start-to-finish process are not. For example, it takes
more time, talent, and effort to create a complex design compared to a
simple one, which adds cost. Removing support material, finishing surfaces,
and inspecting AM parts with complex features can be difficult and costly.
Metal AM part before support material is removed (left)

and after (right), courtesy of Materialise
Geometrically complex part production, made possible only with AM,

comes with many potential benefits. For example, designers can
consolidate two or more parts into one. Some companies have digitally
consolidated more than 100 parts into one and then printed the single part
successfully. This eliminates part numbers, manufacturing processes,
inventory, assembly labor, maintenance, and inspection.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Topology optimization can reduce material and weight and often results in
a shape that can only be produced affordably on an AM system. Lattice and
mesh structures can further reduce weight and improve product
performance.
Original heat exchanger consisting of 155 parts (left) reduced to

one 3D-printed part (right), courtesy of 3D Systems
AM is a “push Many believe AM is a completely automated, push-button operation. One

button” process simply clicks “start” and returns later to find a finished product. Building
high-quality polymer parts typically requires a significant amount of talent,
effort, and labor, and metal parts can require even more. This includes
generating the solid model, planning the process, adding and removing
support material, and finishing the surface.
Building acceptable AM parts starts with a good design. Build orientation

and nesting multiple parts in the build volume are also key. Both can have
a considerable impact on the surface quality and build time. Planning is
key, but it can occur only after one has sufficient knowledge and
experience. This assures that the best decisions are made when designing
and preparing parts for AM.
Many pre- and post-processing tasks involve manual experience and skill.
When preparing a build, it is important to determine the best orientation
of the parts and where and what type of support structures and anchors
should be used. Using the right machine build parameters contributes to
part quality. Different operators will often produce parts with different
results, even when using the same machine and material, because of the
many variables involved.
Metal part with support material still attached (left) and

manual removal (right), courtesy of Materialise

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Most AM systems AM machines range in price from about $200 to more than $2 million. Build
are similar volumes span from smaller than the tip of an ink pen to the size of a house
or larger. Also wide-ranging are the specific processes, energy sources, and
types of materials and forms in which they are provided. Materials for AM
can be powders, liquids, filaments, wires, pellets, or sheets, depending on
the process.
Countless news stories, Hollywood films, television series, and personal

conversations have portrayed low-cost 3D printers as being capable of
producing high-end, production-quality parts. In general, this is not true. A
wide gap in speed and quality remains between low-cost desktop 3D
printers and high-end AM systems for large complex prototypes and series
production.
Desktop 3D printers are incredibly valuable tools for creating and testing
new ideas. Nearly every engineer or designer should have a desktop 3D
printer near them. However, they should also have access to industrial AM
machines when jobs can benefit from them.
AM is environmentally Good arguments for the sustainability of AM consider the entire life cycle of
friendly the parts being produced. Sustainability has several components, including
1) the energy consumed, 2) water requirements, and 3) the carbon
footprint. Sources of energy consumption include feedstock creation,
operation of the AM system, post-processing, recycling, and scrap. Other
energy considerations include potential savings while a part is in service
and end-of-life reclamation.
In general, the AM build cycle itself is not energy efficient compared to

conventional manufacturing processes. This applies particularly to PBF,
DED, and MEX. Power sources such as heaters and lasers are not energy
efficient. Build rates are typically slow, so a significant amount of energy is
consumed while creating a relatively small volume of parts. Energy
consumption in manufacturing is typically normalized by the mass of a
part. In comparison, machining consumes an estimated one-tenth of the
energy of a typical AM process. Conventional manufacturing processes,
such as injection molding, forging, and casting, are typically more energy-
efficient than AM. This is true even when considering the energy used to
produce tooling needed for conventional manufacturing.
AM feedstock may not be fully recyclable. For polymer PBF, 20–40% or

more of the powder may not be recyclable, depending on the specific
material and refresh rate. Some metal powder may not be recycled if
manufactured according to certain ASTM standards. Support material and
post-process machining produce scrap, which represents an energy loss
due to the embodied energy of feedstock creation and processing.
Water resources and the carbon footprint of AM are other elements of

sustainability. Most AM processes, like many conventional manufacturing
processes, use recirculated water. The carbon footprint is largely tied to
energy consumption during part manufacturing and the source of energy
(e.g., solar, fossil fuel, nuclear, etc.). Except for energy consumption, these
factors are generally similar for AM and conventional manufacturing.
The case for sustainability in AM typically arises in three areas, including

low-embodied-energy feedstock, in-service energy savings, and end-of-life
part reclamation. Certain materials, such as wood and stone, have low

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
embodied energy of production. They may be processed by AM, but

typically with binding agents. Some companies are developing low-
embodied-energy polymers.
Stone sculpture, courtesy of Desamanera
The energy savings of a part while in service can have a large impact. For
example, a topology-optimized AM part that weighs less than a
conventionally manufactured part can consume less energy in service if it
is transported. This is particularly applicable for the automotive and
aerospace industries. Consider a lightweight part on an airplane over a
service life of 20 years. The result can be a significant savings in fuel
consumption.
Few materials are This myth may be true in some instances. Materials for any manufacturing
available for AM process, including AM, must be available in the proper form and perform
acceptably in service. Due to the varied feedstock shapes, binding, and
deposition methods, materials for AM vary widely.
Some processes, such as polymer MJT and VPP, rely on specialized base
materials. Others, such as BJT and sheet lamination (SHL), can work with
almost any base material. It is a reality that much of design and
engineering is related to material choice based on historical use. An
alternative is to consider the function of a material when coupled with
good design for AM.
Materials, such as Scalmalloy from APWorks, are being developed

specifically for metal AM. In the future, more specialized materials will
become available for AM. Developers of materials understand that
developing a new material for AM or any manufacturing process can be
expensive. The investment may not be justified if the potential sales
volume is small.
Metal AM produces A surprising number of people believe that AM can produce parts at a lower
cost than conventional manufacturing. In some cases, this may be true, but
parts inexpensively
AM is generally more expensive, especially as part size and production
volume increase. AM is usually cost-effective when it adds value to a
product beyond what is possible with conventional manufacturing.
The following illustration shows that with conventional manufacturing, the

cost of producing a part decreases as quantity increases. With AM, costs
remain roughly constant, with some exceptions. The break-even point—
where the two lines cross—varies widely. It depends on the size of the
part, price of the feedstock, and speed of the machine, coupled with other
factors, such as machine depreciation.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Conventional manufacturing part costs typically decrease as quantities

increase, but with AM, costs remain mostly constant
AM parts are inferior to Articles and research studies often highlight differences between the
conventional parts properties of polymer and metal AM parts and those produced by
conventional manufacturing. This should not be viewed negatively for AM.
Polymer AM parts can be made with properties that are acceptable or may
even exceed those obtained by conventional manufacturing. The properties
may be different, but that does not mean they are inferior. With the right
post-processing and heat treatment, metal AM parts can match forged or
wrought materials and exceed the properties of cast parts. Nearly any
material with known, reliable properties may be used if the part is properly
designed to take those properties into account.
For AM to add value, it is important to design for AM. If the design reduces
part numbers, material and weight, and improves product performance,
the outcome may be more favorable than suggested by the material
properties. In fact, a cost reduction in material and weight can offer the
option of using a stronger and more expensive material. This can result in
improved functionality. The total material cost of production may be lower
because less material is used, and it is lighter in weight.
Every home will Some believe that 3D printers will eventually be found in most homes to
produce all types of products. This is highly unlikely in the foreseeable
have a 3D printer
future. One reason is that most modern products integrate a range of
plastics, metals, and electronics. High-end systems may be capable of
processing a combination of materials in the future, but they will be
expensive and require special training and expertise to operate. Even the
most basic desktop 3D printers require design skills, software tools, and
continuous maintenance beyond what most consumers will accept.
Simple and low-cost 3D printers aimed at children and hobbyists may

eventually become a household commodity, but they will be suited for a
limited number of materials, sizes, and types of parts. Safety is also a
consideration. A 3D printer designed for custom food, such as chocolates,
is another possibility for homes.
The idea of 3D printing at home is akin to sewing machines. When they

became affordable and easy to use decades ago, some people bought them.
Today, however, few people make and wear home-made clothing, even
though most of us could.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Part 2: Materials and Processes
Part 2: Materials and Processes

Additive manufacturing (AM) is the process of joining materials, usually
layer-by-layer, to create a part. AM encompasses many materials and
processes to serve various industries and applications. The AM ecosystem
continues to expand, with new systems and materials being released
regularly.
This part of the Wohlers Report details the seven AM processes and
available materials, including a section on third-party material producers.
AM machines and materials are only one part of the value chain. Many
other important processes, technologies, and businesses support the AM
industry. Parts 1, 4, and 7 of this report detail many activities surrounding
AM for series production and other applications.
Processes AM systems are categorized into seven distinctly different processes. In

general, AM processes have more in common than not. For example, 3D
model data serves as input to all systems and fabrication occurs by joining
materials in successive layers.
The following are the seven standard process categories as defined in

ISO/ASTM 52900 Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing.
▪ Material extrusion (MEX)—an additive manufacturing process in which

material is selectively dispensed through a nozzle or orifice
▪ Vat photopolymerization (VPP)—an additive manufacturing process in
which liquid photopolymer in a vat is selectively cured by light-activated
polymerization
▪ Powder bed fusion (PBF)—an additive manufacturing process in which
thermal energy selectively fuses regions of a powder bed
▪ Binder jetting (BJT)—an additive manufacturing process in which a
liquid bonding agent is selectively deposited to join powder materials
▪ Material jetting (MJT)— an additive manufacturing process in which
droplets of feedstock material are selectively deposited
▪ Directed energy deposition (DED)—an additive manufacturing process
in which focused thermal energy is used to fuse materials by melting as
they are being deposited
▪ Sheet lamination (SHL)— an additive manufacturing process in which
sheets of material are bonded to form a part
The differences between AM process categories can be confusing. The

distinguishing features of the classifications are the nature of the feedstock
and the binding mechanism. System manufacturers have created unique
process names to differentiate themselves from competitors. This
compounds the confusion because many of the “different” systems employ
similar materials and processes.
Nearly all commercially available AM systems fit into one of the seven
categories. One exception is cold spray. Future processes could emerge
that do not fit into one of the categories. The ISO/ASTM 52900 standard
can be updated to support changes in the future. This is the responsibility
of the ISO/ASTM Joint Group 51 on terminology for AM.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The following sections provide detailed information on the seven AM

processes, along with brief descriptions of machines that fall into these
categories. Part 8 of this report provides detailed information on
commercially available AM systems from around the world.
Material extrusion MEX is an AM process in which material is dispensed through a nozzle or

orifice. The process was pioneered by Stratasys and introduced
commercially by the company in 1991. MEX machines force semi-liquid
material through a nozzle attached to an extrusion head as it or the build
platform moves. For most MEX systems, the extrusion head or build
platform moves in the horizontal, x-y plane. Once a layer is complete, the
build platform moves down or the extrusion head moves up the thickness
of one layer. The next layer is extruded, bonding to the previous layer.
The most common feedstock for MEX is an amorphous thermoplastic

polymer filament (i.e., wire-like of uniform cross section) coiled onto a
spool. The filament is heated and extruded. Common feedstock includes
polylactic acid (PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS).
Feedstock is not limited to thermoplastics. Viscous liquids, gels, and

slurries can be dispensed, often without heating. Materials include
ceramics, composites, metal-filled clays, concrete, chocolate and other
foods, and living cells suspended in a hydrogel. Thermoplastic pellets are
also used, which are about 10 times less expensive than filaments.
Manufacturers, such as Cincinnati and Titan Robotics, have pellet-fed MEX
systems.
Schematic of filament (left), paste (center), and

pellets (right) MEX, courtesy of Steffen Ritter
MEX systems are often a less expensive option and are relatively easy to
operate, compared to other AM processes. The process does require
support structures for overhanging features. Most systems are equipped
with only one extrusion head, which typically extrudes one material per
layer.
Machines with two or more extruders are also available. Additional

extruders often deposit a sacrificial support material, which is manually
broken away or dissolved after printing. If the support structures and part
are the same material, the supports must be removed manually. This
typically produces a rough surface where the supports contact the part. It
may be difficult or impossible to remove supports from internal features
such as holes and channels. Soluble support material makes it possible to
include more complex features in a design.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Historically, MEX parts are anisotropic, meaning that their properties vary
depending on the test direction. The most common anisotropy is due to
differences in the structure of the material extruded on the “road path” and
the interface between road paths. Porosity arising from incomplete
feedstock filling a space is another cause for anisotropy. Typically, MEX
parts have similar properties in the x-y direction, but different properties
in the z direction. Bond3D claims it can produce isotropic parts in
polyether ether ketone (PEEK) without porosity using a proprietary
pressure-controlled MEX process. The company reports that tensile bars
printed in the x, y, and z direction have the same tensile strength.
Porosity from a traditional MEX system (left) and Bond3D’s

PEEK part (right), courtesy of Bond3D
Metals are a relatively new material for MEX. BCN3D, Desktop Metal, and
Markforged offer systems in which the thermoplastic filament is
impregnated with small metal particles. Parts must be debound after
printing is complete, followed by sintering to bond the metal particles. This
results in a nearly dense part. The processing of metal by MEX is relatively
slow compared to other metal AM processes.
MEX systems represent the largest installation base of low-cost desktop 3D

printers, many of which are derived from the RepRap open-source project.
A few of the companies that offer these machines and industrial systems
include BCN3D, FAME 3D (Lulzbot), MakerBot, Raise3D, and Ultimaker.
BotFactory produces machines for building printed circuit boards (PCBs)

using conductive inks. MeaTech, Novameat, and Redefine Meat are using
MEX to print plant-based meats. Other companies are using the process to
print candies, chocolates, and biomaterials.
Companies are creating large-scale MEX systems to print furniture,

molding templates, and building materials. Concrete feedstock is used for
the construction of large objects, such as bridges and parts of buildings.
Companies that offer large-scale systems include 3D Platform, CyBe
Construction, Cincinnati, COBOD, ICON, Mighty Buildings, Thermwood,
WASP, and Winsun.
Concrete MEX bench and planters, courtesy of COBOD

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Vat photopolymerization VPP is a process in which liquid photopolymer is placed in a container and
selectively cured by light-activated polymerization. VPP was the first
patented and commercialized AM process, initially called
stereolithography. The first systems used an ultraviolet (UV) laser and x-y
scanning mirrors on computer-controlled galvanometers. The system
scanned a low-power UV light beam over the top surface of the liquid
thermoset photopolymer, polymerizing (curing) and adhering the layer to
the previous one.
Schematic of VPP,
courtesy of Steffen Ritter
VPP systems are desirable for high-resolution parts at a reasonable cost.

Layers of 10 µm (0.0004 in) are achievable. This is a finer resolution than
most other AM processes. VPP requires support structures, which are
typically removed manually. Scan strategies have been developed to
minimize laser scanning time to increase productivity. One result is a
volume of uncured polymer trapped inside. Parts are fully cured using UV
light.
Many VPP machines use a lamp or light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as the

energy source, coupled with digital light processing (DLP) technology. A
DLP unit is comprised of a micromirror array, and each micromirror is
independently activated. The activated micromirror projects light onto the
top or bottom surface of a vat. A set of activated spots make up the desired
image. This technique cures an entire layer at once, making it potentially
faster than scanning a single point of laser light across a surface.
Schematic of DLP-based VPP,


'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Advances in DLP technology have resulted in high-resolution and fine-

featured parts. However, DLP does not scale well to large areas due to
technical challenges and high costs. Typically, DLP systems project light
from below the vat and cure photosensitive resin through a transparent
floor, known as an optical window. This method requires only a relatively
small amount of liquid in the vat compared to machines that cure the top
surface of the resin.
With bottom-curing systems, the optical window is covered by a thin film

or a polymer coating. This is necessary to prevent the cured layer from
adhering to the optical window. For windows using a film, each layer is
cured between the film and the previous layer of the part. The new layer is
mechanically separated from the film. Windows with a coating create
oxygen-filled barriers between the glass and the polymer. The oxygen
inhibits polymerization, creating a liquid film between the optical window
and curing surface. For certain types of parts, this can speed the build
process.
Part being produced from bottom-curing DLP-based

VPP system, courtesy of Carbon
Among the companies that offer industrial DLP VPP systems are 3DCeram
Sinto, Carbon, Coobx, DWS, Lithoz, Novafab, Prodways, and Rapid Shape.
The proprietary MovingLight technology from Prodways employs LEDs
and DLP technology in a curing unit that moves above the vat of resin on a
gantry system. Axtra3D is developing a process that employs DLP to cure
the majority of a layer and a UV laser to polymerize the perimeters.
Many low-cost desktop VPP systems have been introduced since Formlabs
commercialized the Form 1 in 2013. They include the Anycubic Photon
Mono series, Formlabs Form3+, Prusa SL1S, and Voxelab Proxima 6.0.
Figurines printed on the Prusa SL1, courtesy of Prusa

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Other variations of the VPP process have been commercialized. Some

systems from ETEC (formerly Envisiontec) employ lasers and a
proprietary scanning technology called 3SP (for scan, spin, and selectively
photocure). 3SP employs a rapidly spinning mirror that reflects the laser
beam through a series of optical elements onto the top surface of the vat.
Another variation is thin-film photopolymerization. A thin layer of

photopolymer is pulled across the exposure area, contacting the surface of
the previous layer. A full layer is then imaged through the film. The
technology is used in 3D Systems’ ProJet and ProX series VPP systems. The
Korean company Carima uses a similar technology with its DM 400 system.
The VPP process can produce ceramic and metal parts. Microparticle
powder is added to the photopolymer and becomes suspended in the resin.
The parts must go through debinding and sintering to produce a near-full-
density ceramic or metal part. The index of refraction of the particles and
resin must be matched to prevent multiple reflections of the laser at resin-
particle interfaces.
Ceramic lattice structure (light gray) for an antenna measuring

68 x 70 x 12 mm (2.7 x 2.8 x 0.5 in), courtesy
of 3DCeram Sinto and Anywaves
Multi-photon lithography systems produce parts with micron resolution.

These parts are being used increasingly for microelectronic and
microfluidic applications. Overall part dimensions are typically less than 1
mm (0.039 in). The following image shows a part in which the
photopolymer is infiltrated with silica nanoparticles. The part requires
debinding and sintering.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
“Green” microfluidics Y-connector (left) and fully cured glass structure (right)
produced by two-photon VPP, courtesy of Nanoscribe and Glassomer
Powder bed fusion PBF is a process in which thermal energy selectively fuses regions of a
powder bed surface. Thermal energy from a laser or electron beam melts a
portion or all of the powder that the beam contacts. The area adheres to
the previous layer and becomes solid as the material cools. Once the layer
has been fused, a new layer of powder is added.
The layer thickness is dependent on the powder size, material, and

machine specifications. Typical layer thickness is 100 m (0.004 in) for
polymer feedstock and 50 m (0.002 in) for metal powder, but the
thickness can vary from one job to the next.
The term laser sintering is used in the AM industry to refer to laser

polymer PBF processes. Terms for metal processing include selective laser
melting, direct metal laser sintering, and electron beam melting, but they
are not standard across the industry and sometimes misunderstood.
A wide range of polymers and metals are suitable for PBF. Typically,
polymers are semi-crystalline thermoplastics, including PA11 (nylon),
PA12, and PEEK. This polymer class exhibits an unusual melting and
crystallization behavior. This results in part forming with virtually no
residual stress when the powder bed is heated.
Used powder from a PBF system, courtesy of University

of Manchester School of Architecture
Unfused, loose powder surrounding a part serves as a support system. The

unfused polymer powder slowly degrades each time it is exposed to
elevated temperature in the build chamber. For this reason, some
feedstock, such as PA12, can only be reused if mixed with 20‒50% virgin
(new) material.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Schematic of polymer PBF,

For metal PBF, commercial feedstocks are typically metals that can be
easily fusion-welded or cast. Support structures are required to anchor
parts and features to the build plate. Thermal gradients in the build
chamber are high, which leads to significant thermal stresses. The thick
build plate serves as a heat sink and prevents parts from warping during
the build. PBF is a thermal process involving repeated melting and
solidification cycles, causing potential problems with residual stress and
heat-induced distortion.
PBF systems are relatively complex and expensive compared to most other
AM processes, especially for metals. Operating costs are comparatively
high due to facility requirements for inert gas and safe powder-handling.
High feedstock cost and polymer recycling issues also increase operating
costs. Efforts are underway by many companies to reduce the time and
cost of material handling and post-processing.
Parts made using PBF are increasingly being used for final manufacturing
applications. This is because the process creates favorable part quality and
desirable mechanical properties. Also, a relatively large range of metal
powders is available. Equipment manufacturers are incrementally
including process-control capabilities in their machines to ensure
repeatable results. These matters are discussed at length in Part 4 of this
report.
The energy source for most metal PBF processes is a laser or an electron
beam. Laser-based metal PBF systems generally produce a better surface
finish and finer features compared to electron beam systems. Electron
beam systems are typically more expensive but build parts faster than
laser systems.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Schematics of laser (left) and electron

beam (right) PBF, courtesy of Steffen Ritter
Electron beam systems produce less residual stress, resulting in less

distortion and a reduced need for anchors and support structures. Some
loose powder near the electron beam path is partially sintered, making it
sometimes difficult to clear unused powder from holes, interior channels,
and passageways. This is especially true when the features are small and
deep within a part. This makes electron beam systems less desirable for
parts with fine channels built into them.
High speed sintering (HSS) is a PBF process originally developed at

Loughborough University and commercialized by Voxeljet. Print heads
selectively deposit a black infrared-absorbing ink onto a powder bed.
Infrared lamps irradiate the entire surface of the bed. The areas with the
ink absorb sufficient energy to melt the underlying powder. Multi Jet
Fusion (MJF) technology from HP operates on the same principle and jets a
second “detailing” agent to improve the definition of edges. In 2021,
Stratasys released the H350, which uses Selective Absorption Fusion (SAF)
technology, a branded version of HSS.
Schematic of HSS process,

Many companies offer PBF systems. 3D Systems has sold machines using
selective-laser-sintering technology, invented at the University of Texas at
Austin, for many years. The company acquired Phenix Systems in 2013 and
LayerWise in 2014. 3D Systems’ metal PBF machines are derived from
both companies. EOS also pioneered systems for polymers and metals. The
company calls its metal process direct metal laser sintering. Each EOS
machine model is dedicated to a specific class of material. The “P” and “M”
models process polymer and metal powders, respectively.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Renishaw refers to its process as laser melting, while GE Additive’s

Concept Laser is called LaserCUSING. Some system manufacturers and
users refer to the technology as selective laser melting (SLM). This can be
confusing because of the company named SLM Solutions, which refers to
its metal PBF as SLM. The Arcam system from GE Additive calls its PBF
process electron beam melting. The Japanese companies Matsuura and
Sodick offer hybrid systems that combine metal PBF with computer
numerical control (CNC) milling.
Hybrid PBF gas combustor, courtesy of Matsuura
Many other companies around the world sell PBF systems. They include
Aspect of Japan, Intech Additive Solutions of India, Sinterit of Poland,
Sintratec of Switzerland, and XYZprinting of Taiwan. Chinese companies
offering PBF systems include Bright Laser Technologies, Longyuan,
Farsoon, TPM3D, and Huake 3D.
Material jetting MJT uses inkjet print heads to deposit droplets of build material. The
droplets are dispensed selectively as one or more print heads move across
the build area. Feedstocks are typically photopolymers or wax-like
substances to build parts that can be used as investment-casting patterns.
Among the companies that manufacture MJT systems are 3D Systems,
Mimaki, Nano Dimension, Solidscape, Stratasys, and XJet.
MJT systems often use multi-nozzle print heads to increase build speed
and to print different materials. This facilitates the printing of sacrificial
support material, a second build material, or even graded material
combinations. The Connex3 and J-series PolyJet systems from Stratasys
produce parts by simultaneously jetting three different build materials.
Parts, or regions of parts, are built in a range of colors and material
properties. This is accomplished by controlling the proportions of the
three materials. The materials are photopolymers that cure with UV light
exposure as they are deposited.
Schematic of the MJT process,


'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D Systems offers an MJT process called MultiJet printing that produces

graded materials. The Dragonfly system from Nano Dimension jets build
material and conductive inks to produce functional PCBs. The BotFactory
SV2 printer uses a similar inkjet process.
3D-printed circuit board, courtesy of Botfactory
Machines from Solidscape, a Prodways company, produce wax parts, which

are usually used as patterns for the investment casting of metal parts, such
as jewelry. The process uses a proprietary inkjet process, combined with
horizontal milling of each layer. Unlike most MJT systems, Solidscape uses
a thermoplastic, so it does not require UV curing after it is jetted.
Wax pattern for the casting of jewelry,

courtesy of Solidscape
Arburg introduced a process in 2013 that closely resembles MJT. The

company’s Freeformer system deposits droplets of melted thermoplastic at
a frequency of 60–200 hertz. Freeformer feedstock is standard
thermoplastic pellets, which are less expensive than filament.
A different type of material deposition, often referred to as “direct-write”

technology, deposits functional “inks.” These systems atomize nanoparticle
materials while merging with an inert carrier gas into an aerosol. The
aerosol is propelled onto a surface. An annular stream of jetted gas focuses
the aerosol jet into a thin line. The print materials can be a metal or non-
metal, as well as conductors or dielectrics, supporting the printing of
electronic circuits.
Direct-write material deposition is generally incapable of creating 3D

shapes because it operates in 2.5 dimensions, similar to a 2.5-axis CNC
milling machine. The deposition rate is typically very low. However, when
equipped with a proper motion system, direct-write systems can deposit
material on curved surfaces and even around corners. Two companies that
offer direct-write systems are nScrypt and Optomec.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Resistors printed on a curved surface, courtesy of nScrypt
Binder jetting BJT is a process in which a liquid bonding agent is selectively deposited to
join fine particles in a powder bed. The process is similar to MJT in its use
of inkjet print heads. The difference is that with BJT, the dispensed
material is not the main build material, but rather a liquid that binds
particles and layers of powder into the desired shape.
The BJT process was originally developed at MIT and was called 3D
printing. The first commercial spinoff company, Soligen, was founded in
1991. Early licensees of MIT’s technology included ExOne (originally
ExtrudeHone), Soligen, Specific Surface, Therics, and Z Corp. (acquired by
3D Systems in 2012). After the expiration of the original BJT patents,
companies such as Desktop Metal, Digital Metal, GE Additive, and HP
announced BJT systems for producing metal parts. In all cases, post-
processing is necessary to remove the binder and to form a strong, dense
metal part.
Schematic of BJT process,

Color BJT, developed and first commercialized by Z Corp., is offered by 3D

Systems as part of the company’s ProJet CJP series. It uses pulverized
plaster powders and a water-based binder. Taiwan’s Microjet Technology
also offers machines based on BJT.
Full-color BJT model built using a ProJet

printer, courtesy of 3D Systems

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Systems from ExOne jet a liquid binder onto the surface of metal powder
or sand. Metal parts produced by BJT require debinding and sintering in a
furnace to produce usable parts. Sintered metal parts shrink, often in the
range of 20%. Due to this significant shrinking, it can be difficult to
accurately build large parts and some complex features. To reduce
distortion and produce a fully dense part, the porous metal can be
infiltrated with a second, lower-melting-point metal. A popular example is
stainless steel infiltrated with bronze. ExOne offers large build volumes for
both sand and metal. These machines are capable of building parts at
relatively high speeds, although for metal parts, it is important to consider
the additional time for post-processing.
ExOne’s Innovent+ system uses an ultrasonic recoater to support printing

with standard metal injection-molding (MIM) powders. These materials
are commonly available and are less expensive than gas-atomized metal
powder.
Parts produced using BJT and MIM

powder, courtesy of ExOne
Digital Metal, a Swedish company owned by Höganäs, has developed a BJT

system for metals and ceramics with a focus on stainless steel. The
company began selling systems in 2016 after many years of making parts
as a service provider.
Voxeljet offers large systems with wide print heads. The powder materials
used by Voxeljet include polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and foundry
sand. The binder reacts at room temperature but must cure in the powder
bed for a few hours before the parts can be removed.
Sand printer with build volume of 4 x 2 x 1 m (13.1 x 6.6 x 3.3 ft),

courtesy of Tooling & Equipment International

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3DEO has developed a proprietary BJT process that uses MIM powder. A
binding agent is deposited across the entire build area. Up to eight CNC
end mills cut the topology. The milling process can be one layer at a time
or up to 10 layers to improve surface finish. The following image shows a
bolt release for a rifle measuring 19 x 4 x 12 mm (0.75 x 0.16 x 0.47 in).
The part cost was reduced by 25%, with an annual savings of $118,000,
according to 3DEO.
Bolt release, courtesy of 3DEO
Directed energy The DED process uses focused thermal energy to fuse materials by melting
as they are being deposited. A laser or an electron beam usually serves as
deposition
the energy source, and the material is a metal powder or wire. The process
produces near-net-shape parts, usually requiring machining to achieve
required tolerances.
The DED process offers unique capabilities. For example, more than one
material can be deposited simultaneously, making functionally graded
parts possible. Also, most DED systems use a 4- or 5-axis motion system to
position the deposition head. The process is not limited to horizontal
layers. For example, it is possible to produce curved layers with DED. This
capability makes the process suitable for adding material to an existing
part, such as repairing worn areas or adding features to a part or tool. The
DED process is well suited for producing large metal parts.
Schematic of powder-fed (left) and wire-fed (right)

DED system, courtesy of Steffen Ritter
Laser engineered net shaping (LENS) from Optomec injects a metal

powder into a pool of molten metal created by a focused laser beam. BeAM,
acquired by AddUp in 2018, sells its Modulo and Magic series DED
machines. Trumpf, a large manufacturer of industrial equipment and laser
systems, offers its TruLaser DED systems and upgrade options to convert
existing laser welding systems into metal AM machines.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
LENS process, courtesy of Optomec
Sciaky offers a DED process in which an electron beam is the energy source
and the feedstock is in wire form. A Ukrainian company named xBeam has
developed a DED process that uses electron beam energy and metal wire
as feedstock. The xBeam process involves a unique hollow cone beam in a
vacuum for melting material, including reactive and refractory metals.
In 2021, xBeam showed copper parts made on the system. Historically, it

has been challenging to create copper DED parts due to problems
controlling the oxygen level within a system. Prior to getting into the AM
industry, xBeam manufactured and sold electron beam guns under the
company and brand Chervona Hvilya.
Copper parts made using xBeam process, courtesy of xBeam
Digital Alloys has developed Joule, a wire-based DED system. The print
head runs electrical current through the feedstock to melt it to previous
layers. The process resembles wire-feed welding but creates no arc. Norsk
Titanium has developed rapid plasma deposition, a variation of DED using
a plasma arc to melt titanium alloy wire.
Damaged gear housing (left), after DED (center), and after

machining (right), courtesy of Optomec
Most hybrid AM systems combine DED with CNC milling. Machining helps
produce walls and features with tight tolerances. Many companies have
introduced systems since 2013, including DMG Mori, DMS, and Hermle.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
DED process (left) and final machined part (right), courtesy of DMG Mori
Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies introduced its deposition head with

the first commercially available hybrid DED/CNC machine in 2013. The
patented Ambit tool-changeable metal powder deposition head was
integrated into a Hamuel HSTM1000 CNC machine. Since then, the
company has co-developed many new hybrid CNC machines with several
machine tool manufacturers, including ELB and Mazak.
Ambit attachment for CNC machine, courtesy of

Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies
The Ambit technology is installed on a relatively high percentage of

commercially available metal hybrid CNC systems. Ambit heads can be
installed as retrofits on most vertical CNC machines.
Sheet lamination SHL is a process in which sheets of material are bonded to form a part.
Materials can be adhesive-coated papers that form a part when laminated.
Metal tapes and foils are used to create metal parts. Layer contours are
typically generated by a machining process either before or after a layer of
material is deposited.
The first commercialized SHL technology was laminated object

manufacturing from Helisys in 1992, based on a patent filed six years
earlier. The feedstock is a roll of kraft paper commonly used by butchers
for wrapping meat. One side of the paper is coated with a polymer, which
serves as an adhesive. A heated roller joins successive layers, and a laser
beam cuts a 2D profile of the part at each layer.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Schematic of SHL process,

CleanGreen 3D of Ireland manufactures 3D printers that use sheets or rolls

of paper as feedstock. The machines selectively dispense a water-soluble
adhesive that bonds sheets of paper. A tungsten carbide blade cuts the
profile of each layer. The feedstock cost is among the lowest in the
industry, although considerable waste is produced. It can be recycled,
according to the company.
Demonstration parts, courtesy

of CleanGreen 3D
Ultrasonic additive manufacturing (UAM) from Fabrisonic is another SHL

technology. UAM uses ultrasonic welding to bond layers of thin metal tapes
and foils. Layers are welded using ultrasonic vibration supplied by two
high-frequency transducers, coupled with force created by a rolling
sonotrode called a horn. Intermittent machining of layers produces the
part contours. Fabrisonic offers systems that combine UAM with full CNC-
machining capabilities. The process can embed electronics and other low-
melting-point materials in a part.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Heat exchanger made by UAM, courtesy of NASA’s Jet

Propulsion Laboratory and Fabrisonic
Impossible Objects has developed a type of SHL that uses composite

materials. The process jets adhesive onto carbon-fiber or fiberglass sheets
and dispenses polymer powder on each sheet. The sheets are bonded one
at a time. The build is then heated in an oven to melt the polymer. Excess
material is dissolved or trimmed away to reveal one or more solid
composite parts.
Composite bicycle pedals made using SHL,

courtesy of Impossible Objects
Materials The two major categories of AM materials are polymers and metals. A
variety of filled and composite materials are also available, as well as
ceramics and cermets (ceramic-metal hybrids). It is helpful to group
materials into functional categories and material types. Examples include
materials used as patterns for investment- and sand-casting applications.
Polymers Many polymer options are available for AM, but offerings are small
compared to those for conventional processing. AM materials may be
selected based on tensile strength, rigidity, biocompatibility, glass
transition temperature, color, and transparency. Additional properties
include moisture resistance, sterilization, fire retardancy, and smoke and
toxicity emissions. Materials range from hard and stiff to soft, rubber-like
elastomers.
Polymers are classified into two groups based on their behavior at high
temperatures. Thermoplastics can be repeatedly melted, cooled, and
solidified. They retain their properties, although some degradation can
occur, particularly with repeated high-temperature exposure. Thermoset
polymers are permanently cured once they are polymerized. After

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
polymerization, thermosets do not melt. Photopolymers, like those used in

VPP and MJT, are liquid thermoset resins that are polymerized when
exposed to certain wavelengths of light.
Materials used in MEX systems are almost exclusively thermoplastics, such

as ABS, polycarbonate (PC), PC/ABS blends, polyamides (PA), and PLA.
3DXTech and Stratasys offer ULTEM 9085 and ULTEM 1010. These
thermoplastic polyetherimides have a high strength-to-weight ratio and
good fire, smoke, and toxicity properties, making them well suited for the
aerospace industry.
Fume collecting nozzle made in ULTEM 1010 for an aerospace

application, courtesy of UTC Aerospace Systems
The materials available for low-cost MEX 3D printers were limited to ABS
and PLA until 2012 when Taulman3D introduced a nylon copolymer
filament in diameters of 1.75 mm (0.069 in) and 3 mm (0.12 in). Since
then, filament offerings have increased considerably. Users can purchase
high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), PC, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and
polyvinyl alcohol (PVA). Soft, rubber-like materials are also available,
including soft PLA, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and thermoplastic
elastomer (TPE).
A few companies have developed 3D printers that extrude silicone rubber.

The material is printed as a liquid and cures before the next layer is
deposited.
Waterproof silicone wire connectors, courtesy of Spectroplast
Taulman3D offers t-glase, a tough, clear PET material, which has been
cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for food contact and
containers. German RepRap offers a polypropylene (PP) filament that is
said to meet food-grade regulations and standards. TreeD makes a range of
“exotic” filaments, including clay-filled and bone-like materials.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Materials provider Proto-pasta creates filaments in brass, bronze, copper,

iron, or steel powder with a PLA binder. ColorFabb of the Netherlands
produces a variety of metal-filled PLA filaments. Parts can be polished,
tarnished, and rusted like traditional metal parts.
Copper-filled (left) and bronze-filled (right) PLA

sculptures, courtesy of ColorFabb
Some suppliers are producing metal-filled filaments to create metal parts.

They are printed on an MEX system, debound, and sintered in a furnace to
yield a fully dense metal part. BASF announced its Ultrafuse filament,
which can be used on MEX printers to produce metal parts. BCN3D,
Desktop Metal, and Markforged have integrated this capability into
proprietary systems.
316L stainless steel parts from Ultrafuse

filament, courtesy of BASF
PA is the most common polymer for PBF and is available in PA12, PA11,
PA6, and other grades. Nylon is a synthetic PA and the two terms are often
used interchangeably. PA powders cannot be reused indefinitely. With
PBF, the build chamber is heated to a temperature just below the melting
point of PA, which slightly alters its thermal and mechanical properties.
Surface roughness increases if the powder is recycled for many builds
without adding new powder. After each print, powder can be sieved and
reused, but it is typically mixed with 30–50% “virgin” powder to produce
parts of acceptable quality.
Other polymers for PBF include polystyrene and PP, as well as glass-,
carbon-, mineral-, and aluminum-filled PA powders. EOS offers
polyaryletherketone (PAEK), which is said to offer favorable strength,
wear resistance, high-temperature stability, fire, smoke, and toxicity
properties.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Aluminum-filled PA12 smart phone stand, courtesy of EOS
CRP Technology markets a line of PBF powders called Windform.

Advanced Laser Materials, a subsidiary of EOS, offers a range of materials
for PBF. Many companies, including Materialise, use TPU to produce parts
using PBF. TPU 92A-1 exhibits high toughness, tear resistance, and
elasticity. 3D Systems offers DuraForm Flex, an elastomeric PA powder.
BASF offers TPU powders for HP MJF systems, and Lubrizol offers TPU for
PBF and MEX systems.
Flexible water bottle made in TPU, courtesy of Makenica
Oxford Performance Materials produces biomedical devices and industrial

parts in polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) as a service for customers. Other
third-party producers of AM polymers include Arkema, Evonik, Henkel,
Heraeus, and SABIC.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
PEKK environmental control part for Boeing Starliner,

courtesy of Oxford Performance Materials
The materials used in the MJT and VPP processes are mainly thermoset
polymers. They are typically proprietary acrylics, acrylates, and epoxies.
Most of these liquid materials are formulated to cure when exposed to UV
radiation. Some resins cure when exposed to light wavelengths in the
visible spectrum.
Stratasys and Mimaki support many materials for multi-material MJT

technology. Materials include several colors that are rigid or flexible. They
can withstand high temperatures and simulate PP. The result is an
extensive palette of options.
Full-color, transparent parts produced on an MJT

system from Mimaki, courtesy of Olaf Diegel
Several third-party suppliers offer photopolymers for AM including Allied

PhotoPolymersn and Covestro. MakerJuice and Spot-A Materials offer
photopolymers for use in a growing number of low-cost VPP systems.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
New polymer products Despite the challenges from the pandemic, producers of materials continue
by David Espalin to develop and certify new polymer AM products. They are being used for
both industrial and desktop AM systems and applications.
Several new materials have been introduced for large-scale AM. Sabic’s
LNP Thermocomp DC0041XA51 material is a PC copolymer resin filled
with 20% carbon fiber. It is designed for use in large-scale pellet-fed MEX
systems. This material is compliant with European fire safety standards,
making it suitable for the interior of trains.
Covestro has developed Arnite AM2001 GF rPET, a glass-fiber-filled

recycled PET for large-scale pellet-fed MEX systems. (PET is used
extensively to produce bottles for water and soft drinks.) This material is
suited for structural and infrastructure applications and is made from
post-consumer PET waste, which is environmentally friendly. Meanwhile,
Techmer PM has released Electrafil PC 2009 3DP, a PC material reinforced
with lubricated carbon fiber for metal-stretch-forming tools.
3DXTECH introduced FibreX PES+GF30 for filament-fed desktop printers.

It is a composite made from polyether sulfone and 30% glass fiber. The
material is a cost-effective alternative to PEEK and polyethylenimine (PEI).
It offers high glass transition and heat deflection temperatures and is
flame-retardant. 3DXTECH also offers SimuBone, a PLA-based material
that looks and feels like bone and is ISO 22196:2011 certified. It is made
possible by a nanosilver additive, which eliminates 99.9% of bacteria.
Dinosaur skull replica printed with

SimuBone, courtesy of 3DXTECH
Chromatic 3D Materials introduced a range of new materials for MEX

systems that use reactive thermoset polymers. These polyurethanes have
Shore A hardness values of 50–90. ChomaFlow 50 is a medium-strength,
high-flexibility material. ChromaFlow 90 is strong and rigid with residual
flexibility. These materials are suited for gaskets, vibration-damping parts,
and impact-resistant parts in automotive, marine, and aircraft systems.
ChromaLast 60 was designed specifically for high-temperature

applications and can survive short-term exposure of up to 150℃ (302°F).
The polymer is suitable for high-tensile-strength and low-compression-set
applications. ChromaMotive 70 is a strong, flexible polyurethane material
with a high degree of crosslinking. It is suitable for intermediate
temperature applications that require high tensile strength and flame
retardance.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Bellows made in ChromaMotive 70,

courtesy of Chromatic 3D Materials
Covestro introduced Arnitel AM3001 (P), a TPU powder for laser PBF
systems. Due to its soft rubber-like characteristics, it can be used in sports
and lifestyle products, including footwear and personal protective
equipment. The material meets the requirements of the European toy
safety directive.
Somos WaterShed is a new photo-reactive polymer for VPP systems used

to produce investment-casting patterns. It provides a fine surface finish
and high resistance to humidity. Also, it is compatible with high-
performance casting metals such as nickel-based superalloys, aluminum,
and titanium. Minimal ash residue is present after pattern burnout.
For DLP-based systems, the new Somos PerFORM HW material was

developed for plastic injection-mold tooling. It offers high stiffness and
performs well at high temperatures. It is said to be good for applications
involving high pressure and harsh environments, such as wind tunnel
models.
Injection mold made from Somos PerFORM HW (left)

and molded part (right), courtesy of Covestro
Carbon released EPU 41 Black, a material for its DLP-based VPP system.
The elastomer is used for engineering-grade lattices in applications that
require energy return or cushioning, such as shoe soles and cycling
saddles. Carbon also released Lucitone Digital Value, a material designed
for rapid printing of low-cost dentures. A variety of colors are available.
The material meets the requirements of ISO 22112, the industry
specification covering denture products.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Stratasys released a new suite of VeroUltra resins for use in its PolyJet MJT
systems. According to the company, the material provides uniformity and
contrast and produces parts in realistic colors. Stratasys has also released
the Elastico rubber-like material for its MJT machines. It offers elongation
at break of about 360–400%.
VeroUltra material used to fabricate

handheld electronic prototypes,
courtesy of Stratasys
Polymer pricing The cost of AM polymers is typically much higher than equivalent
materials for conventional manufacturing. Most photopolymers,
thermoplastics, and composites for industrial AM systems fall within the
range of $40–250 per kg ($18–114 per lb). By contrast, thermoplastics
for injection molding are typically $2–10 per kg ($0.91–4.55 per lb). This
means AM polymers are 4–100 times more expensive than polymers for
injection molding. Some filaments for low-cost desktop MEX printers are
commonly available for $20 per kg ($9.10 per lb).
The following table provides estimated price ranges for 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of
polymer for AM. The prices account for variations in the quantity
purchased, product quality, and material producer. The MJF systems from
HP require additional consumables, including fusing and detailing agents,
cleaning rolls, and print heads, which increase operating costs. The low
end of the powder price range presented in the following is for companies
that operate the Jet Fusion 5220 system from HP. The cost of MJF powder
doubles for companies that operate the 5200 system.
Material Price range (per kg)
Powders
PA12 $30−110
Glass-filled PA12 $27−100
PA11 $30−120
TPU $50−140
Filaments
ABS $20−500
PLA $20−500
ULTEM 9085 $140−890
Photopolymer
General purpose $100−1,000
Elastomeric $200−800
Heat resistant $150−800
Source: Doug Collins and Olaf Diegel

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
A major reason for the high cost of AM polymers is the comparatively small
size of the AM industry. Feedstock for AM is produced in low volumes,
which increases cost. More processing is often needed to prepare materials
for AM, compared to conventional plastics processing.
For powder-based AM processes, a specific particle size range is required.

Powder is produced in a large particle size distribution, but the size range
for AM is relatively narrow, especially for PBF. Since only some of the
polymer production run is profitable, the price of the material for AM is
relatively high. The need for high-quality powder and filament for AM can
add significant cost to the production of the material.
Company-branded material sales can be an important revenue stream for

AM system manufacturers. Suppliers of materials are reluctant to give up
this recurring profit by lowering prices. Consequently, prices of AM
feedstock have not changed significantly in more than two decades.
However, inroads are being made due to the demand for open platforms
that do not require specific feedstock.
Third-party material suppliers aim to capture a share of the AM market.

This is largely in anticipation of major manufacturing companies and their
suppliers adopting AM for large-scale production. Competition from
material producers is expected to contribute to declining material prices,
especially for pellet feedstock for large-format printers. Companies
manufacturing these types of systems include Arburg, Cincinnati, and Titan
Robotics.
Metals The range of metals and metal alloys available for AM continues to grow. A
by Ryan Kircher designer can choose from, but is not limited to, the following:
▪ Tool steels
▪ Stainless steels
▪ Commercially pure titanium
▪ Titanium alloys
▪ Aluminum alloys
▪ Nickel-based superalloys
▪ Cobalt-chromium alloys
▪ Copper alloys
▪ Gold
▪ Silver
▪ Platinum
▪ Palladium
▪ Tantalum
▪ Tungsten
▪ Niobium
Many of these materials have been available for some time, but their use
for final part production has been limited. This is mainly due to
qualification and certification requirements in aerospace, healthcare,
energy, and other sectors.
Over the last few years, some companies have qualified/certified specific
alloys. This is a necessary step in the adoption of metal AM in highly
regulated industries. For example, Burloak Technologies certified an
AlSi10Mg alloy to Boeing’s BAC 5673 specification.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The U.S. government’s emphasis on developing hypersonic technologies

supports development of high-temperature alloys for AM. For example, AM
copper alloy GRCop-84 has been developed by NASA for combustion
chambers and other high-temperature applications. This alloy was
designed specifically for AM to solve a particular technical problem.
Copper alloy nozzle with internal cooling

channels, courtesy of NASA
Refractory metals are of particular interest in hypersonic applications

because they maintain high structural integrity at elevated temperatures.
These materials are difficult to process by traditional means (e.g., forging
and casting) due to their limited toughness and high melting points.
Designs are often simplified to reduce the amount of processing required.
Powder-based AM processes are an attractive alternative and increase the
design envelope for refractory metal parts. One of the more mature AM
refractory alloys is the Niobium-based alloy Nb C103.
Most metal AM processes involve rapid melting and solidification of

material, which can lead to cracking in alloys not typically considered
weldable. Companies such as Elementum 3D and HRL Laboratories have
developed solutions to this problem by developing metal powders with
grain-refining additions. These additions alter the solidification process
and prevent cracking during processing. This approach has been applied to
materials that are typically difficult to process using AM, such as 6000 and
7000 series aluminum alloys.
Carpenter Additive has developed metal powders specifically for AM

processes. By making slight alterations to the chemical composition, the
company has designed a high-performance Ti-6Al-4V ELI material. The
alloy exhibits a 15–20% improvement in mechanical properties over
conventional materials, while conforming to industry standards. Carpenter
has also developed a stainless steel, known as BioDur 108, that is
essentially free of nickel and cobalt. The material is contributing to the
medical device industry because regulations have created pressure to
eliminate these problematic elements.
BJT systems from Desktop Metal, Digital Metal, ExOne, GE Additive, and HP
are used to produce metal parts. Available materials include stainless steel,
Inconel, cobalt-chrome, bronze, iron, tungsten, and tungsten carbide. With
some processes, the binder is burned out and bronze or another material is

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
infiltrated into the parts during a post-build furnace cycle. For high-
performance applications where infiltration is not an option, parts are
sintered at high temperature to produce a homogeneous metal part, but at
the cost of substantial shrinking.
BJT parts typically shrink in the range of 20% during the high-temperature
sintering process. Adjustments are made at the design phase to account for
this dimensional change. SHL systems from Fabrisonic bond metal tapes
(i.e., thin sheet materials), such as copper, titanium, and stainless steel,
using ultrasonic welding. Using this process, layers of dissimilar metals can
be joined together.
MEX systems use filaments made from thermoplastic polymer and metal
powder are used to manufacture “green” parts that are similar to those
from BJT systems. These parts undergo a similar debinding and sintering
process to remove the polymer binder and consolidate the metal powder
particles. The amount of binder needed for MEX metal processing is
greater than for BJT. The MEX filament must flow when melted, which
limits metal particle loading.
Nearly all PBF systems have been limited to part manufacturing in a single
material. Alternative processes, such as DED, are used for multi-material
metal AM. Aerosint, a Desktop Metal company, has developed a recoater
mechanism capable of selectively depositing multiple powders in the same
powder bed. The multi-material layers are then consolidated using thermal
energy, such as a laser. This approach can change PBF from a single
material process into one of multiple materials.
A multi-metal heat exchanger,

courtesy of Aerosint and Aconity
Nearly all parts produced using metal AM must undergo heat treatment as
part of post-processing to improve material properties. Reasons for this
include reducing residual stress, refining microstructures, and eliminating
print defects. For demanding applications, such as aerospace and medical
devices, the heat treatment of choice has historically been hot isostatic
pressing (HIP). The process removes porosity and regions of incomplete
fusion.
Engineers apply non-destructive testing and in-process monitoring

techniques to confirm that metal AM parts do not contain manufacturing
defects. As confidence in metal AM grows, the industry is slowly adopting
alternatives to HIP, which in some cases, achieve improved material
properties.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In 2021, Cornell University reported a study conducted in collaboration

with HIP furnace provider Quintus Technologies. The study used laser PBF
build parameters to create porosity in parts made in Ti-6Al-4V
intentionally. The parts were subsequently subjected to a HIP thermal
cycle. The resulting microstructure was not only defect free, but also
displayed a unique duplex microstructure unobtainable with metal AM
alone.
Micrographs showing intentional defect in Ti-6Al-4V after PBF

processing (left) and improved microstructure after
HIP (right), courtesy of Cornell University
Another key development in metal AM is the emergence of powder

recycling and reclamation providers such as MolyWorks and 6K. These
companies are developing methods to provide metal AM users with
spherical powders derived from recycled metals. Recycled materials can
come from machining chips, failed AM parts, support structures, and out-
of-spec AM powder. Most metal alloy powders can be reintroduced into an
AM system a limited number of times before they no longer meet
specification standards.
New metal powders The metal AM powder market began to recover from the pandemic in
by Behrang Poorganji 2021. The aerospace and biomedical industries are major drivers of
growth. AM system manufacturers, service providers, and others have
qualified several alloys. Materials include nickel, copper, aluminum, and
titanium alloys and specialty steels. Near the beginning of 2022, the AM
industry was experiencing long delivery times when purchasing nickel
and copper alloys.
Tekna has launched Ni718, Ni625, and HX nickel alloys through a joint
venture with Aperam Alloys. The venture is known collectively as
Imphytek Powders. Tekna is also building a new powder plant in France
with a capacity of up to 1,500 tons per year. Tekna is expanding its Ti-6Al-
4V production in Canada following successful qualification. Höganäs
opened a plant in Johnstown, Pennsylvania using a modified water-
atomization process to make powders for MIM and BJT. Aubert & Duval
expanded its Pearl Micro powders to include Ni247LC and Ni738LC. The
company also worked with Mitsubishi Power to add MHA3300, a carbide-
strengthened cobalt-based alloy.
Some emerging materials have been designed specifically for use in AM

processes. At Formnext 2021 in Frankfurt, Germany, Constellium
announced the Aheadd range of alloys for laser PBF systems. These alloys
support higher AM productivity and easier post-processing. The Aheadd

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
CP1 material is an Al-Zr-Fe alloy designed to replace standard aluminum

alloys such as AlSi10Mg, F357, and 6061. The following image shows a
heat exchanger 250 mm (9.8 in) in diameter, produced using Constellium’s
Aheadd CP1 alloy. The part was built on an EOS M 290 system.
Heat exchanger made in Aheadd CP1 alloy,

courtesy of Volum-E and Constellium
Performance requirements for rocket and hypersonic parts are driving

development of refractory alloys and high-thermal-conductivity materials.
6K has announced the commercial launch of a new set of refractory metal
powders for AM. The company has shown part of a solid-fuel rocket motor
nozzle 3D printed in a tungsten-rhenium alloy. Bavarian Metal Works has
developed a new manufacturing process for tungsten alloys, WNiFe, and
WNiCu.
Thermal management challenges in automotive, electronics, and aerospace

have increased demand for copper and copper alloys. As of early 2022,
demand for GRCop-42 copper alloy powder had exceeded its limited
supply, and alternatives for alloyed copper powders are emerging. Mitsui
Kinzoku and Elementum 3D have both developed new copper alloys for
AM.
Tooling applications are the drivers for new AM steel materials. Daido
Steel introduced DAPTM-AM HTC45 and DAPTM-AM HTC40, which are
H13 tool steel derivatives. The company claims that DAPTM-AM has two
times the thermal conductivity of maraging steel. With this material, a
mold’s life is extended because cooling lines do not crack as easily.
In March 2021, Desktop Metal and Uniformity Labs announced a new 6061
aluminum for BJT. Dense parts were produced after post-process sintering
with an elongation at break of more than 10%. The company claimed that
parts had improved yield strength and ultimate tensile strength compared
to wrought 6061 aluminum alloy with comparable heat treatments. ExOne
and Ford Motor Company have announced a new manufacturing process
for 6061 that combines BJT and high-density sintering. The process is said
to deliver final parts with 99% density and properties comparable to
conventionally manufactured 6061.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Producing powders Metals powders for AM include nickel, cobalt, titanium, specialty steel,
for metal AM aluminum, tungsten, copper, and tantalum. Others are also available.
These metals offer a wide range of metallurgical properties. Among them
are resistance to thermal degradation, corrosion resistance, erosion
resistance, strength and toughness, conductivity, and density.
Powder for metal AM is usually made using a gas atomization process. This
includes vacuum induction melting and plasma atomization. Other
processes include centrifugal atomization and water atomization (WA).
Each of these processes has further subprocesses, depending on the raw
material form and desired control over powder characteristics. Most of
these atomization processes produce spherical powders that have good
powder density and reproducible particle size distribution.
Gas atomization blasts a stream of molten metal with a jet of neutral gas.
This forms the metal into spherical particles.
Schematic diagram of a gas atomization system
Vacuum induction melting gas atomization is similar, but the process

occurs in a vacuum, which minimizes oxidization of the metal powder. The
following image shows spherical powder produced in a vacuum induction
atomization process.
Powder produced by vacuum induction melting,

courtesy of Aubert & Duval
WA is the most common process for making metal powders for press-and-
sinter and cold-isostatic-pressing applications. WA rapidly solidifies
molten metal droplets using a water spray, resulting in an irregular, non-

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
spherical particle shape. The WA process is configured similarly to gas

atomization. While the processes look similar, they differ greatly.
Differences include:
▪ High pressure water, instead of gas, is used to break the liquid metal
stream into particles.
▪ Atomization occurs in an air atmosphere instead of in a vacuum or inert
atmosphere. WA is unsuitable for alloys that react in air because
undesirable chemistries or non-metallic inclusions may form.
▪ The WA particle solidification rate is more rapid than gas atomization,
resulting in irregularly shaped particles instead of spherical shapes. This
results in reduced packing density for powder bed AM technologies (i.e.,
PBF and BJT).
Schematic of WA process, courtesy of European

Powder Metallurgy Association
WA powder is not generally used for AM. However, the technology could
be advantageous due to its relatively low cost. Non-powder-bed AM
processes, such as cold spray and DED, are less dependent on particle
shape and therefore are better suited to use powder from WA.
The ideal powder shape for metal powder bed AM systems is spherical
because it is beneficial for powder flowability and packing. Spherical
particles form uniform, highly dense layers. This advantage applies equally
to metal PBF and BJT systems. All powder bed AM systems work by
spreading thin layers of powder before selectively fusing or binding each
layer. Powder that spreads well improves part quality.
Typical powder structures to be controlled and minimized are:
▪ Irregular powder shape

▪ Agglomerates or satellites, which are small powder particles stuck to the
surface of larger particles. They may impede spreading and/or “streak”
the layer.
▪ Hollow powder particles with closed porosity. These particles can
explode during the melting process or entrap gas in the part.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Undesirable powder defects, courtesy of Renishaw
The particle size for PBF is typically in the range of 30–40 m (0.0012–
0.0016 in). Virtually all non-classified, unsieved powder distributions show
a normal, bell-shaped curve when the logarithm of the particle size is
plotted. Powder distributions contain many more small particles than
large ones. Using a logarithm function transforms the curve to a bell-
shaped normal distribution like the one shown in the following.
Typical particle size distribution for laser PBF
Some AM systems that spread powder in very thin layers may require a
smaller particle size because it cannot be larger than the layer thickness.
Some materials, such as aluminum, may have a slightly larger particle size
than steel or titanium. Often, powder manufacturers “classify” powder by
sieving. A sieve is a fine wire mesh with uniform, square openings of a
given size. Powder poured through the sieve is separated into two lots: fine
powder that passes through the sieve and coarser powder that does not
pass through.
Average particle sizes of 100–150 m (0.004–0.006 in) are commonly used

for EBM and DED processes.
Mixing powders with different particle sizes is desirable if the smaller

particles can fit between the larger ones in a powder bed. This increases
the layer packing density. Otherwise, the presence of fine particles in a
large-particle powder bed may decrease the powder bed density by
increasing the distance between large particles.
Metal powders can be a health hazard if not handled properly. Among the
factors to consider when working with metal AM powders are:
▪ Powder storage, handling, and aging: for almost all alloys, shielding gas,
moisture control, and temperature control are important and strongly
recommended.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
▪ Powder recyclability: conditions of reuse of powders after AM build

cycles.
▪ Health, safety, and environmental issues of metal powder: fine powders,
such as aluminum and titanium, can explode.
The following table provides production processes used to make several

types of metal powders.
Process
Powder process Precursor material Company Alloys typically produced
description
Ni Co Fe Ti Al Cu W Ta
Chemical reduction processes
TiCl4, AlCl3, VCL2, Coogee Kroll-like continuous
MeltFree (TiRO) X
MxCly Titanium Mg reduction
Electrochemical
Al-
FFC MxOy Metalysis reduction, molten X X
Sc
CaCl2
Cristal Chemical reduction
Armstrong TiCl4 X
Titanium by molten Na
Hunter-like molten
EMR Molten Salt
TiCl4 CSIR Na chemical X
Reduction
reduction
NextGen
Meltless Not disclosed Not disclosed X
Alloys
Various - R&D Chemicals multiple Chemical reduction X X X X
Traditional melting processes
Vacuum melting +
Gas Atomization Elements, scrap multiple X X X
inert gas atomization
Vacuum melting +
Cold Wall Induction Elements, scrap multiple X X
inert gas atomization
Atomization of mill products
Plasma Wire Inert melting using
Cold drawn wire multiple X X X X X X X X
Atomization plasma
Inert melting + gas
EIGA Exact length bar multiple X X X X X X
atomization
Inert melting +
Precision
PREP multiple centrifugal X X X
straightened bar
atomization
Other
Plasma Irregular-shaped Inert melting in a RF
Tekna X X X X X X X
Spheroidization powder plasma field
Sponge, thin-gauge Hydride-dehydride
Mechanical Crushing multiple X X
scrap (HDH)
The following table provides the steps involved in common metal powder
production processes. All of them include sieving, testing, and packaging.
Particle
Powder process Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
morphology
Chemical reduction processes
MxClY reduced by low-
Continuous vacuum Irregular, suitable
MeltFree (TiRO) oxygen Mg powder in a N/A
distillation for spheroidizing
fluidized bed reactor
MxOy electrochemical
FFC Water wash to remove salt N/A Irregular
reduction in molten CaCl2
TiCl4 reduced in a
Armstrong Water wash to remove salt N/A Irregular, dendritic
molten Na reactor
EMR Molten Salt TiCl4 reduced in a Irregular, spongy, or
Water wash to remove salt N/A
Reduction molten Na reactor crystalline
Continued on following page

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Particle
Powder process Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
morphology
Traditional melting processes
Melt elements/scrap in Atomize using inert Atomized droplets solidify
Gas Atomization Spherical
a vacuum furnace gas via gas ring in an inert atmosphere
Melt elements/scrap in Atomize using inert Atomized droplets solidify
Cold Wall Induction Spherical
a vacuum furnace gas via gas ring in an inert atmosphere
Atomization of mill products
Plasma Wire CD wire is fed into Wire is melted and atomized Atomized droplets solidify
Spherical
Atomization a plasma field by plasma torches in an inert atmosphere
Centerless ground bar is Bar end melts and is
Atomized droplets solidify
EIGA mounted then slowly fed atomized using inert Spherical
in an inert atmosphere
into an induction coil gas via a gas ring
Bar end is melted using a
Precision straightened bar Atomized droplets solidify
PREP plasma torch; droplets are Spherical
is rotated at high RPMs in an inert atmosphere
formed by centrifugal force
Other
Plasma Irregular powder is fed into Particles are melted in Molten particles solidify in
Spherical
Spheroidization an RF plasma field the plasma field an inert atmosphere
Sponge or thin-gauge
Crushed particles are
Mechanical scrap is heated in a The brittle metal is
heated and dehydrided in a Irregular shards
Crushing furnace with a hydrogen mechanically crushed
vacuum furnace
atmosphere (hydrided)
Metal powder pricing The metal powder industry does not typically publish prices. Pricing
transactions are held confidentially between producers and/or resellers
and their customers. A rough estimate of typical AM powder prices for
industrial metal powders ranges from about $20 to more than $250 per kg
(2.2 lbs). Price differentials can be explained by one or more of the
following:
▪ Value of the alloying elements

▪ Starting precursor materials
▪ Particle size differences
▪ Consumer-specified particle-size distribution
▪ Order quantity
▪ Producer costs
The intrinsic value of elements composing AM powders is similar to non-

AM applications. If the use of scrap is prohibited, powder prices are
typically higher than for applications that permit the use of scrap. Primary
AM elements (i.e., aluminum, titanium, steel, etc.) are commodities and
their costs vary, sometimes greatly, over time.
Precursor materials range from chemicals, scrap, and basic elemental

metals, to wires, which have been hot worked from ingots and cold drawn.
The cost of precursor materials directly affects the powder cost.
Particle size and distribution produced by atomization and other particle-

making processes differ greatly. Therefore, the yield of powder suitable for
specific applications also differs. This variable impacts the suitability of
some atomization and particle-making processes for AM.
As discussed, a powder-making process produces a range of particle sizes.

If only particles of a specific range in size are acceptable, the price will
increase, potentially by orders of magnitude.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In general, the larger the order, the lower the price. This reflects
processing and handling cost differences. A powder producer’s processing
costs, productivity, overhead, and profit requirements are price variables
that differ by producer.
The following table includes estimated prices for 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of metal
powder for AM. The prices can vary, sometimes greatly, depending on the
quality of the product, quantity purchased, and other factors discussed in
this section.
Material Price estimate (per kg)
AlSi10Mg aluminum alloy $78

AlSi7 aluminum alloy $74
316-L stainless steel $88
17-4 PH stainless steel $78
Maraging steel $133
Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy $363
Pure Grade 2 titanium $363
Inconel 718 $145
Inconel 625 $145
Source: Olaf Diegel
Composites and Composites consist of two materials: a base material and a reinforcing
hybrid materials material. One of the most common base materials for PBF systems is PA.
Composite reinforcement materials include glass, aluminum, and carbon
fibers, as well as advanced fibers such as Kevlar.
Reinforcement fibers are added to improve mechanical properties such as

tensile strength, fracture toughness, and stiffness. The fibers do not cross
over from one layer to the next. Therefore, the improvements are in the x-y
plane and not in z-direction. Achieving isotropic composite parts with AM
is an active area of research and development (R&D).
Composite reinforcements are added as particulate, chopped fibers, and

continuous fibers. Interlocking latticework configurations are also
available but are less common. Particulates in AM are integrated into
feedstocks for BJT, PBF, SHL, and MEX to form a macroscopically
homogeneous material.
For MJT, particle loading is limited by flowability properties associated

with jetting the mixture. For composites processed in VPP systems,
unwanted spreading of the laser beam in the photopolymer can occur.
Spreading is caused by internal reflections off particulate surfaces in the
liquid. This is eliminated by matching the indexes of refraction of the
photopolymer and the particulate. Care is taken with VPP systems to
prevent unwanted settling of the reinforcement in the liquid.
Fortify, a Massachusetts company, mixes composite fibers into the resin

mixture for its VPP process. The material is pumped through the build area
to create a uniform distribution of composite fibers. The company uses
magnets to align the fibers in pre-determined orientations, depending on
the geometry and application of the parts. The fibers do not cross between
layers, so parts are anisotropic.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Ceramic-reinforced tooling, courtesy of Fortify
For powder-based AM, a reinforcement material is stirred into a base

powder, such as nylon, to create a blend. This is possible for both
particulate and chopped fiber reinforcement. The following image is an
electric motorcycle’s front nose, 3D printed with a carbon-fiber reinforced
nylon.
Carbon-fiber-reinforced nylon motorcycle nose

piece, courtesy of CRP Technology
The alignment of chopped fibers for MEX occurs as the feedstock is forced
through a nozzle. Continuous fibers are typically placed using mechanisms
that operate independently of the base material deposition system. MEX
systems are capable of printing polymers containing chopped fibers. They
are available from Arevo, InnovatiQ, Markforged, Stratasys, and others.
These materials offer many of the benefits of conventionally manufactured
composites.
Single-piece composite bike frame, courtesy

of Superstrata and Arevo

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Markforged offers MEX systems designed to print parts with both chopped
fiber and continuous composite strands. The Onyx and Onyx ESD materials
from Markforged are made from a nylon with micro-carbon fibers.
Materials with a continuous strand of fiber within a thermoplastic are also
available. Options for continuous-fiber strands are carbon, fiberglass, and
Kevlar. Parts produced with this process exhibit favorable properties in
the x-y direction.
Schematic of composite MEX,

The following image shows a tool used to lift engine pistons. Using
continuous-carbon-fiber composites, the tool successfully lifted 960 kg
(2,115 lbs) when tested and was certified to lift 240 kg (530 lbs). The
original part was manufactured from solid steel. Redesigning the part for
AM reduced weight by 75%. The company reported saving €100,000 on
tooling as a result of 3D printing the tool in a composite material.
Tool to lift engine pistons, courtesy of Wärtsilä and Markforged
Impact Innovations specializes in cladding cylinders and pipes with

dissimilar materials in a wide range of sizes using a cold spray process. The
part in the following image was made from copper and Inconel, a nickel-
based alloy.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Inlet manifold of a combustion chamber made from copper

and nickel alloys, courtesy of Impact Innovations
The ultrasonic SHL process from Fabrisonic can produce metal hybrid
parts in two distinctly different ways. First, different metal foils, such as
copper and aluminum, can be used to produce a single part. Second,
specialized materials can be embedded between layers to produce metal
parts with unique properties. For example, nickel-titanium fibers can be
embedded between layers of aluminum. This produces a composite part
with a coefficient of thermal expansion that is considerably lower than
aluminum without the fibers.
The Fabrisonic process has been used to create more than 70 different
paired metal combinations. Aluminum-copper, aluminum-iron, and
aluminum-titanium are routinely joined. More exotic combinations are
also possible, such as tantalum-iron, silver-gold, and nickel-stainless steel.
1.
Rocket fuel pipes with embedded fiber-optic

sensors, courtesy of Fabrisonic
Materials for Materials available on the AM market are designed specifically for metal-
casting processes. Two major categories are investment casting and sand
metal casting
casting.
AM parts can replace wax patterns for investment casting, which

eliminates pattern tooling. However, the AM material used must replicate
the behavior of investment-casting wax. It must melt or burn out of the
investment shell completely with minimal residue or ash. Also, the AM

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
material cannot expand during burnout because it may cause cracking of

the relatively thin ceramic shell. Because of these challenges, some
investment-casting foundries are reluctant to develop new processes for
an unfamiliar material.
Eliminating wax pattern tooling with AM is cost-effective for prototyping

and low-volume production. AM parts can include optimized gating and
riser locations with minimal shrinking. With AM, they can be completed
before the tooling is made, allowing for fewer revisions.
MJT systems from Solidscape, a Prodways company, are used primarily to

create investment-casting patterns for jewelry. The proprietary
thermoplastics effectively function as investment-casting wax. DWS and
ETEC offer photopolymers that are burned out because they do not melt.
PMMA used in Voxeljet machines can also be used for casting patterns. EOS
offers PrimeCast 101, a polystyrene used in its PBF machines.
Printed wax pattern (left) and finished ring (center and right),
courtesy of Sasha Primak and Solidscape
3D Systems offers QuickCast, a stereolithography technique used to

produce patterns that are mostly hollow. QuickCast has been widely
accepted for investment-casting patterns by foundries in the U.S. Some of
the ProJet systems from 3D Systems are capable of producing wax
patterns.
Investment casting (left) from QuickCast pattern (right),

courtesy of 3D Systems
Important parts for expendable-mold sand casting are the cope (top half of
mold), drag (bottom half of mold), and cores. For metal casting, these mold
parts are used once because they are destroyed in the process of retrieving
the metal casting. AM has been used to produce all three components, but
particularly for cores due to their innate complexity. The conventional
process for making sand-casting cores is to form them in molds called core
boxes. Making cores using AM processes eliminates the need for core
boxes, potentially saving time and money.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Complex AM sand core, courtesy of Voxeljet
Individual patterns, cores, and entire molds can be produced on AM

systems. Size, part quantity, and complexity are considerations that
determine whether AM is the best solution. ExOne and Voxeljet offer
foundry sand for their large BJT systems. Longyuan and Shaanxi Hengtong
also offer foundry sand for their PBF systems.
Refer to the supplemental document named castmetal2022.pdf for more

depth and breadth on cast metal parts.
Ceramics and Ceramic materials and blends are offered by several companies. 3Dceram
other materials Sinto, Admatec, Lithoz, Prodways, and Tethon 3D offer photopolymers
filled with ceramic particles. A secondary furnace cycle burns off the
binder and sinters the ceramic, resulting in shrink of 15–30%, depending
on the material and process. Covestro offers a ceramic-reinforced
photopolymer for high-temperature applications. BJT systems from ExOne
produce glass and ceramic parts.
Cross section of a ceramic static mixer,

courtesy of Creatz3D Ceramics
NanoParticle Jetting from XJet produces zirconia and alumina parts. Part
density is reported to be 99.9% after a furnace cycle that results in shrink
of 16%. Vertical build speed is 1.5 mm (0.059 in) per hour.
Biocompatible materials are a growing area of interest in AM. Some metals,

such as titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V, can be implanted into human patients.
Another material group that can be implanted is PEEK and PEKK. ETEC
lists several biocompatible materials for its 3D-Bioplotter system.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
PEEK spinal cage, courtesy of Bond3D
CleanGreen3D’s SHL technology produces parts made of paper and an

adhesive. Parts have a wood-like feel and can be hardened with
cyanoacrylate, followed by sanding and painting.
Paper hammer prototype, courtesy

of CleenGreen3D
Graphene and other nanomaterial reinforcements increase technical

performance and can potentially reduce material cost. Graphene is used to
improve mechanical strength, thermal conductivity, and electrical
conductivity of AM polymers, particularly thermoplastics.
Researchers at the University of Waterloo’s Multi-Scale Additive

Manufacturing Lab have created a wearable sensor using AM. The device,
made from silicone rubber and nanoscale graphene, monitors vital signs
and athletic performance. The sensor is flexible and durable and can
tolerate harsh environments including the laundry.
Wearable sensor created with AM, courtesy

of the University of Waterloo

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
A joint venture has developed between construction companies Costain,

Skanska, and Strabag to build the HS2 railway tunnels in London. The
effort will involve testing graphene-reinforced concrete intended for 3D-
printed retaining walls. Microscopic strands of graphene in the concrete
will replace steel reinforcement. The technology, known as
Printfrastructure, is said to have environmental benefits and cost savings.
3D-printed graphene-reinforced retaining wall,

courtesy of Costain, Skanska, and Strabag
Third-party material Many companies produce materials for the AM industry. Some sell
material products directly to AM system manufacturers, who in turn
producers brand the material as their own and supply it to customers. In many
cases, these agreements are not disclosed to the public. Other producers
supply AM materials directly to the owners of AM equipment.
Historically, this group of third-party material producers has been small.
However, it has grown rapidly in recent years, particularly in the metal
powder segment.
Open vs. closed material Material sales can be an important source of recurring revenue for AM
system manufacturers. These companies are reluctant to lose that revenue
business models
stream to others. The machines they produce and sell can have physical,
electronic, and/or software locks to prevent the use of “unauthorized”
materials.
Some system manufacturers have developed and maintained patents and

trade secrets, and even pursued litigation. The intent is for customers to
use only their materials. Companies often follow a practice of voiding
warranties or not honoring maintenance agreements when machines have
been operated with alternatively sourced materials. A few third-party
service providers offer equipment maintenance and repair services to
customers.
In the early years of the AM industry, system manufacturers performed

nearly all development work internally by necessity. This included
mechanical design, software development and materials R&D. As a result, a
closed-architecture model ensued, and few third-party materials were
available.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Today, the closed-architecture model is still present for some AM machines

and materials, particularly for polymers. This is especially true for veteran
companies such as 3D Systems and Stratasys. The financial results of these
companies illustrate the importance of consumables to a machine
manufacturer’s business.
For metal AM, the open-architecture material model has taken precedence.
This may be partly because metal AM has developed in parallel with the
adoption of AM for production applications. Large customers require
multiple sources of raw materials to ensure the viability of their
production supply chain. The cost of the materials is also critical because
these systems are often used for full-scale manufacturing. If the material is
too expensive, the use of AM for production is not feasible.
Third-party producers The following tables list third-party companies that produce and sell
materials for AM systems. Some companies produce AM materials but only
sell parts made from the material and not the material itself. These
companies are excluded from the tables.
The first table lists producers of non-metal AM materials, most of which

are polymers. The second table lists producers of metal powder for AM.
These powders are typically formulated for metal PBF machines. The
material producers are listed alphabetically in each table. These tables are
not exhaustive, but they include most of the major companies in this
business.
Non-metal material producers

3D4Makers MEX www.3d4makers.com
3D-Fuel MEX www.3dfuel.com
3Dom MEX www.3domfilaments.com
3D Resin Solutions VPP www.3dresinsolutions.com
3DXTech MEX www.3dxtech.com
Adaptive3D VPP www.adaptive3d.com
Additive Elements BJT www.additive-elements.de
Advanced Laser Materials PBF www.alm-llc.com
Allied Photopolymers VPP www.alliedphotopolymers.com
Arkema PBF, VPP www.arkema.com
Barlog Gruppe MEX www.barlog.de
BASF PBF, MEX, VPP www.forward-am.com
Biogelx VPP www.biogelx.com
Braskem MEX www.braskem.com.br
c2renew MEX www.c2renew.com
Canada Powder BJT www.canadapowder.com
Chroma Strand Labs MEX www.chromastrandlabs.com
Chromatic 3D Materials MEX www.c3dmaterials.com
Clariant MEX www.clariant.com
Colorado Photopolymer Solutions VPP www.cpspolymers.com
ColorFabb MEX www.colorfabb.com
Composites One MEX www.compositesone.com
Copper3D VPP www.copper3d.com
Covestro MEX, PBF, VPP www.covestro.com
CRP Technology PBF www.crptechnology.com
Detax VPP www.detax.de
Diamond Plastics PBF www.diamond-plastics.de
Dreve ProDiMed VPP www.dreve.de
DuPont MEX www.dupont.com
Eastman MEX www.eastman.com
Emery Oleochemicals MEX www.emeryoleo.com
Ensinger MEX www.ensingerplastics.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Non-metal material producers

Esun MEX www.brightcn.net
Evonik PBF, VPP, MEX www.evonik.com
Exceltec PBF www.exceltec-inc.com
Fenner (Ninjatek) MEX www.ninjatek.com
Filament PM MEX www.filament-pm.com
Filaticum MEX www.filaticum.com
Filkemp MEX www.filkemp.com
Fillamentum MEX www.fillamentum.com
FormFutura MEX www.formfutura.com
Gehr MEX www.gehr.de
Graphite AM PBF, VPP www.graphite-am.co.uk
H&H Plastics MEX www.hh3dplastics.com
Henkel VPP www.henkel.com
Huntsman PBF, MEX, VPP www.huntsman.com
Infinite MEX www.infinitematerialsolutions.com
iSquared MEX, MJT www.isquared.eu.com
Kuraray VPP www.kuraray.com
Lehmann & Voss & Co. PBF, MEX www.lehvoss.de
MCPP Netherlands MEX www.mcpp-3dp.com
Microfol Compounding PBF www.mycompounds.de
Nanoe MEX www.nanoe.com
Nefilatek MEX www.nefilatek.com
Nexeo Plastics MEX, VPP, PBF www.nexeo3d.com
Nextdent-Vertex VPP www.nextdent.com
Polymaker MEX www.polymaker.com
Print-Me MEX www.print-me.pl
Recreus Industries MEX www.recreus.com
SABIC MEX www.sabic.com
Sailner VPP, MJT www.sailner.com/en/
Solvay MEX, PBF www.solvay.com
Sonnaya Ulitka (Spot-A) VPP www.spotamaterials.com
Stronghero3D MEX www.stronghero3d.com
Taulman3D MEX www.taulman3d.com
Techmer PM MEX www.techmerpm.com
Tethon 3D VPP www.tethon3d.com
Dow Chemical Company MEX www.dow.com
TIGER Coatings PBF www.tiger-coatings.us
Toray Industries PBF www.toray.com
UPM MEX www.upm.com
Victrex MEX www.victrex.com
Virtual Foundry MEX www.thevirtualfoundry.com
Wacker Chemie MEX www.wacker.com
Xerox MEX www.xerox.com
Xioneer MEX www.xioneer.com
Metal powder producers
6K www.6kinc.com
Aperam Alloys www.aperam.com
Arconic www.arconic.com
ATI Specialty Materials www.atimetals.com
Atomizing Systems www.atomising.co.uk
Aubert & Duval www.aubertduval.com
Bayerische Metallwerke www.bayern-innovativ.de
Carpenter Technology www.cartech.com
Chung Yo Materials www.cymaterials.com.tw
Circle Metal Powder www.cmpowder.com
CNPC Powder www.cnpcpowder.com
Constellium www.constellium.com
Cooksongold www.cooksongold.com
CVMR www.cvmr.ca
Daido Steel www.daido.co.jp/en/
Eckart TLS www.tls-technik.de
Elementar www.elementaramericas.com
Elementum 3D www.elementum3d.com
Equispheres www.equispheres.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Metal powder producers

Erasteel www.erasteel.com
Eutectix www.eutectix.com
FalconTech www.falcontech.com
GKN Powder Metallurgy www.gknpm.com
Global Tungsten & Powders www.globaltungsten.com
Graphite Additive Manufacturing www.graphite-am.co.uk
H.C. Starck www.hcstarck.com
Headmade Materials www.headmade-materials.de
Heraeus www.heraeus.com
Höganäs AB www.hoganas.com
HRL Labs www.hrl.com
ImphyTek Powders www.imphytekpowders.com
IMR Metal Powder www.imr-metalle.com
Johnson Matthey www.matthey.com
Kymera International www.kymerainternational.com
M4P Material Solutions www.metals4printing.com
MacLean-Fogg www.macleanfoggcs.com
Matter Providers www.matterproviders.com
Metalysis www.metalysis.com
Mimete www.mimete.com
Mitsui Kinzoku www.mitsui-kinzoku.com/en/
MolyWorks www.molyworks.com
Nextgen Steel and Alloys www.ng-steel.com
Oerlikon www.oerlikon.com
Osaka Titanium Technologies www.osaka-ti.co.jp
Oxmet Technologies www.oxmet-technologies.com
Powder Alloy Corporation www.powderalloy.com
Praxair Surface Technologies www.praxairsurfacetechnologies.com
Pyrogenesis www.pyrogenesis.com
QuestTek www.questek.com
Reade www.reade.com
Rusal America www.rusalamerica.com
Sandvik Materials Technology www.materials.sandvik
Schmelzmetall www.schmelzmetall.com
SentesBiR www.sentes-bir.com
Sino-Euro www.c-semt.com
Steward Advanced Materials www.stewardmaterials.com
Tekna www.tekna.com
TIMET www.timet.com
Toyal www.toyala.com
Tronox www.tronox.com
Uniformity Labs www.uniformitylabs.com
U.S. Metal Powders (Ampal) www.usmetalpowders.com
UTRS www.utrs.com
Valimet www.valimet.com
VBN Components www.vbncomponents.se
VDM Metals www.vdm-metals.com
Voestalpine www.voestalpine.com
Wolfmet www.wolfmet.com
Z3DLAB www.z3dlab.com
Materials database Senvol maintains a public database of AM systems and materials.

Specifically, the company tracks the producers of materials and the
products they offer. If a company offers five grades of stainless steel
powder, each in four particle-size distributions, they are counted as 20
individual material products. AM materials can be investigated at
www.senvol.com/material-search. The data has been compiled to reflect
year-end figures from 2017 through 2021 and filtered to omit
discontinued products as of December 2021.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Materials by process The following chart shows the number of material products for each of
the seven major AM processes and six types of materials. Some metal
powders are available for multiple processes such as PBF, DED, and BJT.
To avoid replication, these materials are counted under PBF because it is
the more commonly used process.
Source: Senvol
The most diverse offering of materials is for metal PBF, by a large margin,
followed by polymer VPP and polymer MEX. The data used to create the
previous chart is presented in the following table.
BJT DED MEX MJT PBF SHL VPP Total

Ceramic 3 1 6 - - - 27 37
Composite 7 4 158 - 71 2 12 254
Sand 5 - - - - - - 5
Wax - - 1 3 - - 14 18
Metal 23 61 18 - 902 18 4 1,026
Polymer 3 - 592 78 157 - 681 1,511
Total 41 66 775 81 1,130 20 738 2,851
Source: Senvol
Material producers Senvol tracks companies that supply AM materials. They include AM
and products system manufacturers and third-party material producers. The total
number of suppliers is shown by year in the following graph. All data used
to produce the following charts was taken at the end of each year. The
number of material suppliers has grown consistently from 2017 to 2021.
From 2020 to 2021, the number of suppliers increased by 13%.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Source: Senvol
The following chart shows the total number of commercially available

products by material type.
Source: Senvol
In 2021, 89% of commercially available AM materials were polymers and

metals, which represent 53% and 36%, respectively. The largest growth in
material products for AM was in polymers. Composites represented 9%, a
slightly greater portion than for 2020. Ceramic, sand, and wax represent
specialized applications and systems and are only available from a limited
selection of suppliers. The following table provides the data used to
produce the previous chart.
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Ceramic 24 23 33 36 37
Composite 100 138 175 219 254
Metal 498 693 844 988 1,026
Polymer 496 700 969 1,222 1,511
Sand 5 5 5 5 5
Wax 16 15 15 16 18
Source: Senvol

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The following chart shows metal products available for AM over the past
five years. They include filaments, powders, sheets, and wire stock.
Source: Senvol
Nickel-based alloys, steel, and titanium products represented 68% of the

available metals for AM in 2021. The “Other” category includes iron,
precious metals, and refractory metals. Applications for these metals are
increasing, but the materials are available from a limited number of
suppliers. The data used to create the previous chart is presented in the
following table.
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Aluminum 49 78 104 115 121
Cobalt 39 56 58 66 71
Copper 9 16 25 34 37
Nickel 105 158 177 205 209
Steel 132 177 227 269 281
Titanium 118 142 175 199 203
Other 46 66 78 100 104
Source: Senvol
The following chart shows growth trends in the most commonly used
thermoplastic products for AM. They are mostly polymers used in MEX and
PBF systems.
Source: Senvol
PA, also known as nylon, dominates the thermoplastics market due to the
growing number of PBF machines and applications that use these powders.
They include many grades of PA, such as PA6, PA11, and PA12, which is the
most common. TPU is an elastomer used with MEX and PBF systems. Its

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
use increased in 2021. Overall, polymers for MEX and PBF are expected to
expand and diversify over the coming years. The data used to create the
previous chart is presented in the following table.
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ABS 15 25 38 54 63
PA 67 85 103 110 128
PC 9 14 18 20 26
PEEK 6 11 17 19 19
PEI 7 13 16 17 21
PETG 8 12 20 27 36
PLA 8 25 40 62 78
PP 4 10 18 27 35
TPE 2 7 13 19 20
TPU 10 25 40 51 62
Source: Senvol

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Part 3: Industry Growth
Part 3: Industry Growth

Overall, the additive manufacturing (AM) industry recovered in 2021 from
the pandemic, which slowed growth in 2020. Most system manufacturers
of all sizes experienced an increase in machine sales in 2021.
In 2021, AM organizations saw an overall increase in revenue from

services offered by system manufacturers and service providers. Wohlers
Associates believes that when system sales are at risk of declining,
manufacturers put more energy into increasing sales of services. This
increase corresponds to growth in material sales.
The average annual growth rate of worldwide revenues produced by all

AM products and services over the past 33 years is 25.9%. The average
annual growth over the past four years (2018–2021) is 20.4%. AM
industry revenues have grown in the double digits for 24 of the past 34
years. The industry continues to offer tremendous untapped potential.
Revenue from By most indicators, the pandemic caused a considerable slowdown of the
manufacturing industry. Even so, overall AM products and services
AM worldwide worldwide grew by 19.5% to $15.244 billion in 2021. This is compared to
growth of 7.5% to $12.758 billion in 2020.
Growth of 19.5% in 2021 is based on data received from 241 service

providers, AM system manufacturers, and producers of third-party
materials worldwide. A company experiencing a year of poor performance
may be less likely to respond to requests for information on how they are
doing. Respondents provided both positive and negative comments and
evaluations.
Performance by 3D Systems and Stratasys, two companies with large AM

businesses, was relatively weak from 2016 through 2020. In 2021, the two
manufacturers reported revenue growth of 10.5% and 16.6%, respectively.
In contrast, the two manufacturers reported declines of 12.4% and 18.1%,
respectively, in 2020. The eight largest system manufacturers represented
about $2.269 billion (14.9%) of the entire AM industry in 2021.
The $15.244 billion industry-wide estimate includes revenue from the

primary AM market. This segment consists of all products and services
directly associated with AM processes. Products include AM systems,
materials, and aftermarket products, such as software and lasers. Services
include revenue generated from parts produced on AM systems by
independent service providers. It also includes system maintenance
contracts, training, seminars, conferences, expositions, advertising,
publications, contract research, and consulting services.
The global estimate of $15.244 billion excludes money spent on AM inside

companies such as Adidas, Boeing, Ford, Stryker, and thousands of others,
both large and small. It excludes the value of research, development,
prototyping, tooling, and production with AM at these companies and at
universities and national laboratories. The global estimate omits the value
of AM parts produced by the original equipment makers (OEMs) of

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
automobiles, aircraft, medical/dental products, consumer products, and so

on. The value they are producing with AM adds up to a large amount, but it
is impossible to quantify.
The $15.244 billion also excludes venture capital, private equity, and other
investments in AM-related companies in 2021. Details on many of these
investments are found in Part 7 of this report.
Products and services Worldwide revenues from AM products were an estimated $6.229 billion
in 2021, an increase of 17.5% from the $5.303 billion produced in 2020.
This segment grew by 5.1% in 2020 and 22.3% in 2019.
Total sales from AM systems were an estimated $3.417 billion in 2021.

This represents only the systems themselves and does not include
maintenance agreements, spare parts for these systems, software
upgrades, etc. This represents an increase of 13.4% from $3.014 billion in
2020. System sales increased 1.0% in 2020 and 14.7% in 2019.
AM services grew to an estimated $9.015 billion in 2021, an increase of

20.9% from $7.454 billion in 2020. This market segment grew by 9.2% in
2020 and 20.3% in 2019. In 2021, revenue from service providers was
$6.235 billion, which represents 69.2% of the total $9.015 billion AM
services revenue.
The following graph provides revenues (in millions of dollars) for AM

products and services worldwide. The lower (green) segments of the bars
represent products, while the upper (gray) segments represent services.
Neither category includes secondary parts or processes, such as molded
parts and castings. The industry has experienced significant growth in the
past 10 years, expanding by more than 8.8 times over this period.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Growth percentages The following table provides annual revenue growth percentages.
Revenues from services were unavailable prior to 1994, the year that
Wohlers Associates began tracking this information.
Overall % Products % Services %

Year
growth/decline growth/decline growth/decline
1988 – – –
1989 153.2% 153.2% –
1990 25.6% 25.6% –
1991 32.7% 32.7% –
1992 18.5% 18.5% –
1993 – 28.1% –
1994 99.7% 59.4% 139.4%
1995 48.8% 58.8% 42.3%
1996 42.6% 41.0% 43.9%
1997 7.5% 10.6% 5.3%
1998 4.6% 6.3% 3.3%
1999 13.9% 14.6% 13.3%
2000 11.5% 2.1% 18.9%
2001 -10.5% -1.7% -16.4%
2002 -10.0% -0.9% -17.2%
2003 9.2% 15.2% 3.5%
2004 33.3% 48.3% 17.5%
2005 14.6% 10.0% 20.9%
2006 21.7% 20.0% 23.7%
2007 16.0% 14.7% 17.5%
2008 3.7% 0.0% 7.9%
2009 -9.8% -13.2% -6.2%
2010 24.1% 22.9% 25.3%
2011 29.4% 28.0% 30.7%
2012 32.7% 28.8% 36.4%
2013 33.4% 41.3% 26.3%
2014 35.2% 31.6% 38.9%
2015 25.9% 18.4% 33.0%
2016 17.4% 12.9% 21.2%
2017 21.0% 17.4% 23.8%
2018 33.5% 31.6% 35.0%
2019 21.2% 22.3% 20.3%
2020 7.5% 5.1% 9.2%
2021 19.5% 17.5% 20.9%
System Industrial AM systems have been tracked and discussed for 27 consecutive
years by Wohlers Associates. Excluded from this section are systems that
manufacturers sell for less than $5,000, often referred to as “desktop” or “low-cost” 3D
printers. They are covered in the section titled “Desktop 3D printers.”
The rapid proliferation of AM system manufacturers has accelerated in

recent years. In 2021, Wohlers Associates tracked 266 manufacturers who
produced and sold industrial AM systems worldwide. This is an increase of
38 manufacturers (16.7%), compared to 2020. Since 2012, the number of
industrial system manufacturers has grown by more than 800%.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The top (blue) line in the following graph shows the number of
manufacturers of industrial AM systems. The bottom (green) line shows
the number of manufacturers that sold a minimum of 100 machines
annually. In 2021, 39 companies sold at least 100 systems, compared to 31
in 2020.
The 266 system manufacturers are spread across six continents, as shown
in the following table. The number of manufacturers in China increased
from 26 in 2020 to 37 in 2021. In Japan, they declined from 12 in 2020 to
nine in 2021. The number of manufacturers in the U.S. increased from 47
to 59.
# of system # of system
Country Country
manufacturers manufacturers
United States 59 Taiwan 5
Germany 38 Sweden 4
China 37 Brazil 3
Netherlands 12 Canada 3
Austria 11 Switzerland 3
Italy 10 Turkey 3
Japan 9 Denmark 2
France 8 South Africa 2
Poland 8 Ukraine 2
South Korea 8 Argentina 1
Australia 7 Finland 1
Israel 7 Iran 1
Spain 7 Ireland 1
Russia 6 Portugal 1
United Kingdom 6 Singapore 1
Seventy-seven system manufacturers reported research and development

(R&D) spending. In 2021, a company spent on average 36.8% of their
annual revenue on R&D. This is compared to 36.3% in 2020 and 38.6% in
2019. These relatively high percentages are likely due to the many
relatively young manufacturers that responded to the survey. They are still
in an early development phase and spending more on R&D than more
developed companies.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Unit sales In 2021, an estimated 26,272 industrial systems were sold. This total
represents growth of 24.9% from the 21,029 systems sold in 2020. The
year 2020 saw a decline of 8.4% from 2019, when an estimated 22,970
industrial systems were sold. Growth was 19.4% in 2019.
Total unit sales growth of 24.9% reflects pent-up demand from 2020,
coupled with a rise in sales of relatively low-cost ($10,000–50,000)
systems. This growth also accounts for 38 manufacturers that Wohlers
Associates began tracking in 2021 and included in this report for the first
time. The following chart shows industrial system sales from 1988 through
2021.
The following table gives the unit sales growth rate of industrial AM
systems by year. As you can see, growth has varied greatly over the history
of the industry. The average annual growth rate from 1990 through 2021
is 21.2%. The average growth was 13.4% over the past four years (2018–
2021).
Year Growth Year Growth

1989 205.9% 2006 17.7%
1990 9.6% 2007 19.1%
1991 -28.1% 2008 1.5%
1992 35.4% 2009 -10.3%
1993 41.4% 2010 37.3%
1994 103.8% 2011 5.6%
1995 64.1% 2012 19.6%
1996 50.9% 2013 26.6%
1997 31.7% 2014 30.2%
1998 -5.3% 2015 -2.3%
1999 19.8% 2016 4.2%
2000 11.4% 2017 25.1%
2001 -1.4% 2018 17.5%
2002 13.0% 2019 19.4%
2003 27.3% 2020 -8.4%
2004 52.5% 2021 24.9%
2005 23.5%

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The following shows these growth rates in the form of a graph. It reflects
the fluctuation of system sales over the history of the AM industry.
Market shares The following chart shows market share estimates of unit sales among
industrial AM systems manufacturers worldwide in 2021. This segment
includes companies that sold more than 250 units. Stratasys’ share
declined to an estimated 12.0%, compared to 13.5% in 2020 and 16.6% in
2019. The “Other” segment increased from 34.3% in 2019 to 35.9% in
2020 and then to 38.6% in 2021. This includes new companies entering
the market and established companies that sold fewer than 250 units.
Some companies may sell many units at a lower price than those selling
fewer units at a higher price.
In 2003, the installed base of industrial AM systems from Stratasys became

the largest worldwide. The company has maintained this position since
then. Through the end of 2021, Stratasys sold an estimated cumulative
total of 69,155 industrial systems. This total includes industrial systems
sold by Objet and Solidscape before being acquired by the company.
(Prodways acquired Solidscape from Stratasys in 2018.)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D Systems has the second-largest installation base, with an estimated

32,150 installed industrial systems. This estimate includes machines sold
by DTM, Phenix Systems, and Z Corp. before the three companies were
acquired by 3D Systems. The third-largest installation base belongs to
ETEC (previously Envisiontec), with an estimated 13,177 industrial
systems.
Systems sold by region The following chart shows the total number of industrial AM systems sold
in 2021 by companies headquartered in each geographic region. These are
systems that are sold from these regions of the world and not necessarily
installed within them. The installation of systems by geographic region can
be found near the beginning of Part 5. For 2021, the U.S. represented
45.5% of unit sales, an increase from the 37.8% sold in 2020.
Unit sales for Europe and the Asia/Pacific region declined to 23.0% and
17.2% in 2021 from 27.1% and 19.1% in 2020, respectively. Israel fell
from 14.0% in 2020 to 12.3% in 2021. Stratasys became an Israeli
company in late 2012, which is why the country holds a significant
worldwide market share. These percentages represent unit sales and not
revenues.
The following chart provides the cumulative total number of industrial AM

systems sold from each geographic region from 1988 through 2021. U.S.
system manufacturers are responsible for 49.0% of all industrial AM
machines sold, up from 42.4% in 2020. Israel’s share decreased from
23.2% to 21.8%. Europe’s share decreased from 21.7% to 15.6%, and
Asia’s share increased from 12.3% to 12.9%.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Average selling price The average selling price (ASP) of an industrial AM system was $93,404 in
2021. This compares to $100,510 in 2020 and $98,105 in 2019, as shown
in the following graph. (The values are in thousands of dollars.) Desktop
3D printers are not included in this ASP calculation.
The ASP declined from 2001 through 2010, as shown in the previous
graph. The ASP rose sharply after 2010. One reason for the increase was a
gaining of traction of high-end AM machines, including metal systems,
which can be up to 10 times the price of an average polymer system.
Another reason is that sales of machines at the low end of the industrial
system segment ($10,000 to $30,000 products) began to decline due to the
growth and popularity of desktop 3D printers. Together, these factors
caused the ASP of industrial systems to increase.
Since 2017, the ASP of industrial AM systems has stabilized at between

$95,000 and $100,000. Over the past two years, the ASP declined, likely
due to an increase in companies purchasing systems in the $10,000 to
$50,000 range. In 2020, Formlabs released a polymer powder bed fusion
(PBF) system at $20,000, and in 2021, Xact Metal began to sell a metal PBF
system for $65,000.
Metal AM systems Sales of AM systems for metal parts increased by 10.7% in 2021. Wohlers
Associates has been tracking this market segment for 20 years, as shown
in the following graph. An estimated 2,397 metal AM machines were sold
in 2021, compared to the 2,165 sold in 2020.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
An estimated $1.234 billion in revenue was produced from sales of metal

AM machines in 2021. The ASP of a metal AM machine was $514,823 in
2021, compared to $501,844 in 2020 and $467,635 in 2019. The following
graph reflects these ASPs (in thousands of dollars).
Polymer AM systems In comparison to metal AM, polymer systems are considerably less
expensive. In 2021, the ASP of a polymer AM system was $51,094. This
includes systems priced at $5,000 to more than $500,000. In 2021, 10
times more polymer industrial systems were sold than metal systems.
Unit sales by The following table shows the number of industrial AM machines (those
manufacturer and year that sell for $5,000 or more) sold from 2007 through 2021. The “Total”
column gives the number of machines sold from 1988 through 2021. A
similar table for 1988‒2006 is in Appendix B.
Many of the numbers in this table were generously provided by the system
manufacturers. For unit sales that are estimated, Wohlers Associates has
taken a conservative approach so that it does not inadvertently "inflate"
figures for companies that did not provide hard data.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Argentina
Trideo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37 37
Australia
AML3D - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 4 7
AmPro - - - - - - - - - - - * 5 6 64 -
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Asiga - - - - - 5 9 15 20 20 20 48 704 * * -
Aurora Labs - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Gizmo 3D - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Spee3D - - - - - - - - - - 3 4 5 4 7 23
Titomic - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 * -
Austria
APS Tech Solutions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 8
Cubicure - - - - - - - - - - 3 4 5 4 7 23
EVO-Tech - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
Genera - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
HAGE3D - - - - - - - - - - 45 51 37 42 28 203
Incus - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 2 54 10
Lithoz - - - - 1 2 2 34 74 104 154 244 284 * * -
SBI - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
UpNano - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 4 10 15
W2P - - - - - - - - - - - * 137 1104 1254 -
Weirather - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
Xioneer - - - - - - - - - - * * * - - -
Belgium
Colossus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 4
Brazil
Alkimat - - - - - - - - 3 04 04 - 44 3 * -
Omnitek - - - - - - - - - - - * 11 * 11 -
Romi - - - - - - - - - - - - - * 24 -
Canada
Accufusion 1 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 1
AON3D - - - - - - - - - - - - 150 1394 1454 434
Nanogrande - - - - - - - - - - * 3 1 1 1 -
Newpro3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104 - 10
Rapidia - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 84 5 19
China
Binhu 18 16 134 114 124 31 50 - - - - - - - - 237
BLT - - - - - - - 3 9 17 304 334 504 * * -
BMF - - - - - - - - - - - * 35 334 118 -
Chamlion Laser Technology - - - - - - - - - - - - - 124 104 22
Coin Robotics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 3
CoLiDo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104 10
CTC - - - - - - - - - - * * * - - -
Dazzle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 304 30
Dedibot - - - - - - - - - - - - - 154 104 25
EasyMFG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 124 12
Eplus 3D - - - - - - - - 52 86 104 127 127 117 197 810
Farsoon - - - - - 6 13 23 35 77 105 1354 181 154 164 893
Fochif - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
HBD - - - - - - - - - - 37 63 137 1314 142 510
Hengtong 40 35 35 36 40 38 41 44 41 187 189 1854 1904 1784 * -
Heygears - - - - - - - - - - - - - 304 754 105
Huake 3D - - - - - - - 28 37 394 414 454 45 15 12 262
IBridger - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
IEMAI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Intamsys - - - - - - - - - - * * * * 1204 -
Kings 3D (Jinshi 3D) - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
Laseradd - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
4 4
LongYuan 8 9 7 7 9 12 21 24 15 100 48 66 73 61 67 598
Nyomo - - - - - - - - - - * * * - - -
Peopoly - - - - - - - - - - - - - * 104 -
Prismlab - - - - - - - - - - * * * * 234 -
ProtoFab - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
QuickBeam - - - - - - - - - - 3 3 2 1 * -
Radium Laser - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
Raycham - - - - - - - - - - * * 30 15 30 75
Riton - - - - - - - - - - - * * * 154 -
Sailong Metal - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54 * -
Shanghai Digital Manufacturing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Shining 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - 4504 * 530 -
Syndaya - - - - - - - - - - * * * * - -
Techgine - - - - - - - - - - - * * * 204 -

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Tiertime 44 159 198 202 259 155 205 123 119 96 45 50 48 45 75 2,027
TPM3D - - - - - 9 10 124 124 154 204 224 20 20 40 180
UnionTech 124 94 54 54 44 8 26 52 153 349 504 4804 5254 4904 4754 3,157
WiiBoox - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
XDM - - - - - - - - - - * * - - - -
Xery - - - - - - - 147 61 42 102 * - - - -
Yibo 3D - - - - - - - - - - * * * * - -
Yongnian - - - - - - - - - - 10 15 * * - -
Zhuhai CTC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ZRapid Tech - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Columbia
Fused Form - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 12
Croatia
Darko Strojevi - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - -
Czech Republic
Trilab - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18 18
Denmark
AddiFab - - - - - - - - - - - * 6 8 6 -
Blueprinter - - - - - - 15 63 704 - - - - - - 148
Cobod - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 22 24
Finland
MiniFactory - - - - - - - - - - - 2 254 20 22 69
France
3DCeram Sinto - - - - - - - 1 2 6 8 12 14 15 15 73
AddUp8 - - - - - - - - - - 154 374 414 * * -
BeAM - - 2 0 1 04 04 4 5 8 8 - - - - 28
Julien - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Lynxter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Microlight - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 74 74 19
Phenix Systems 15 14 16 18 12 10 83 - - - - - - - - 113
Pollen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 19
Prodways - - - 1 3 4 4 13 27 31 36 2454 2874 * * -
Volumic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 304 30
Germany
2oneLab - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 5
3BOTS 3D Engineering - - - - - - - - - - 2 13 19 104 - 44
3D Micro Print - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
3D Micromac - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
3D printed microTEC - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 * 3 -
3D-Mectronic - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 34 6
Aconity - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 21 25 61
AIM3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 154 15
Alpha Laser - - - - - - - - - - - - - * 104 -
AMCM - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 33 53
Apium - - - - - - - - 9 94 84 124 29 37 35 139
Arburg - - - - - - - 24 34 54 54 104 15 4 * * -
BigRep - - - - - - 15 15 81 120 151 140 158 96 107 883
Chiron Group - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 2
Concept Laser 19 17 15 23 28 43 85 111 161 156 1554 - - - - 850
CR3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 124 12
DMG Dental - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 204 20
DP Polar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 124 12
EOS 79 99 72 89 137 145 201 284 370 403 461 460 460 290 310 4,516
FlensTech - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Gefertec - - - - - - - - - - * * * 10 124 -
German RepRap9 - - - - - - - - 485 726 278 2304 2654 2404 - 2,224
Gewo Feinmechanik - - - - - - - - - - * * 5 5 54 -
Impact Innovations - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
Innovation MediTech - - - - - 18 104 - - - - - - - - 28
InnovatiQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2254 225
Kühling&Kühling - - - - - - - - - - * * * - - -
Kulzer - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 304 30
Kumovis - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 7 11 20
Kurtz Ersa - - - - - - - - - - - - * 1 10 -
Lunovu - - - - - - - - - - - 3 5 2 6 16
Multiphoton Optics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 4
Nanoscribe - 14 44 74 104 134 154 254 304 30 254 244 194 164 224 241
Orion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 5
Precitec - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
Pyot Labs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 124 12
Rapid Shape - - - - 15 35 70 754 190 4 175 4 140 4 120 4 700 4 * 815 -
4 4
ReaLizer - - 9 11 14 14 23 14 19 23 20 - - - - 147

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Sintermask 3 1 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6
SLM Solutions - - - 10 21 30 62 102 130 113 674 494 604 654 709
Trumpf 7 9 9 11 13 13 19 26 32 59 105 116 1204 1024 1004 758
Voxeljet 3 4 3 5 5 8 11 14 17 19 15 18 19 12 144 171
Vulcantech - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 4 8 15
VXL (Xioneer) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 204 * -
Walter Feist Systemtechnik - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Hungary
DO3D (Voxeltech) - - - - - - - 2 5 54 54 124 04 - - 29
India
Amace - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1
Intech - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 7 9
Iran
Noura - - - - - - - - - - * * 2 3 5 -
Ireland
CleanGreen3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
Mcor Technologies - 4 9 50 72 138 300 600 700 5004 2004 1054 204 - - 2,698
Israel
Cubital - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33
Fleximatter - - - - - - - - - - - * * - - -
IO Tech - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Massivit 3D - - - - - - - - - 22 40 384 40 4 10 22 172
Modix - - - - - - - - - - - - * 454 604 -
Nano Dimension - - - - - - - - - 6 84 124 124 84 24 48
Objet 402 433 388 594 929 1,130 - - - - - - - - - 4,752
Solido 224 184 289 450 - - - - - - - - - - - 901
Stratasys - - - - - - 5,3755 6,6655 5,1665 4,6505 4,1005 3,7106 3,6606 2,8456 3,1554 39,326
Tritone - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 24 3
XJet - - - - - - - - - - 3 12 7 6 5 33
Italy
3D4Mec - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 34 1 6
3ntr - - - - - - - - - - * 145 115 122 142 524
DWS 414 54 67 156 1704 130 1454 146 193 375 498 4904 5204 176 159 3,404
Gimax3D - - - - - - - - - - - * * - - -
Mark One - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 20 9 49
MeccatroniCore - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 124 12
Prima Industries - - - - - - - - - - - 3 15 154 154 48
Roboze - - - - - - - - - - * 79 65 50 604 254
Sharebot - - - - - - - - 64 704 754 80 146 165 143 743
Sisma - - - - - - - 10 30 43 504 554 168 34 204 410
WASP - - - - - - - - - - * * * 450 580 -
Japan1
Aspect 6 3 5 1 5 3 11 7 16 20 20 15 10 5 6 139
Autostrade 8 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 279
Chubunippon 14 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25
4 4 4 4 4 4
CMET 30 20 13 11 10 20 28 22 28 26 22 20 25 15 12 571
D-MEC 104 44 34
14
04
- - 54
54
64
64
64
* * * -
Denken 64 44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 195
DMG Mori - - - - - - - 24 54 11 94 304 284 * * -
Genkei - - - - - - - - - - * * * - - -
Keyence - - - - - 54 104 154 254 294 284 304 284 * * -
Kira 11 6 44 24 - - - - - - - - - - - 231
Matsuura - - - - - 54 54 154 124 10 15 18 10 5 64 101
Mazak - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Meiko - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 143
Mimaki - - - - - - - - - - 25 28 17 16 38 124
Mutoh - - - - - - - - - - 2604 400 300 260 2604 1,480
NTT Data CME - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 186
Ricoh - - - - - - - - - - * * * * - -
Roland DG - - - - - - - 460 200 100 100 50 * * - -
Sodick - - - - - - - 10 37 454 304 324 354 * * -
Unirapid 2 1 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 75
Latvia
Mass Portal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Liechtenstein
Coobx - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 14 184 42
Luxembourg
Anisoprint - - - - - - - - - - - 10 50 108 210 378
Netherlands
Additive Industries - - - - - - - - 1 7 10 15 20 10 5 68
Admatec - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Atum 3D - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Blackbelt - - - - - - - - - - - - - * 154 -
Builder - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
CEAD - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 50 54
CyBe Construction - - - - - - - - - - * * 7 8 14 -
FELIXprinters - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 83 1044 209
Luxexcel - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
MX3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 4
Opiliones - - - - - - - - - - - - - 154 204 35
Tractus3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 124 204 32
Poland
3DGence - - - - - - - - - - - 48 54 604 654 227
ATMAT - - - - - - - - - - - - - 204 254 45
Klema - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Omni3D - - - - - - - - - - * * 18 33 54 -
Sinterit - - - - - - - - 25 40 84 261 2754 2804 3004 1,265
SondaSys - - - - - - - - - - - 11 124 5 104 38
UBOT 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 204 254 59
Vshaper - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Portugal
Tecnirolo - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
Russia
3DSLA.RU - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 2 6
Additive Solutions (AddSol) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 3
Lasers and Apparatus - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Picaso 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 373 373
Rusatom - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 1 5
Total Z - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Singapore
Kinergy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49
Structo - - - - - - - - 2 15 154 304 384 854 1004 285
Slovenia
Dentas - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 54 9
South Africa
Aditiv Solutions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 3
Fouche 3D Printing - - - - - - - - - 4 64 84 54 54 54 33
South Korea
AON 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 20
Carima - - 5 25 26 132 157 170 238 327 360 385 430 220 241 2,716
Cubicon - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 54 9
InssTek - - - - 3 2 2 14 24 5 54 54 54 9 124 51
Maxrotec - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 * -
Menix 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21
Rokit - - - - - - - - 2004 167 392 1604 250 229 2404 1,638
Sentrol - - - - - - - - 10 14 10 4 34 * - -
Sindoh - - - - - - - - - - - - 95 201 238 534
4
Solid Freeform Systems - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 5 8
Spain
Addilan - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 14 1 5
Allied Dimensions - - - - - - - - - - * * * * - -
CNC Barcenas - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
Dynamical 3D - - - - - - - - - - - 48 81 72 854 286
Meltio - - - - - - - - - - * - 37 29 69 135
Microlay - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
SamyLabs - - - - - - - - - - - * 3 3 5 -
Sicnova - - - - - - - - - - * * * * - -
Triditive - - - - - - - - - - - 0 1 1 2 4
Sweden
Arcam 15 10 11 14 14 24 27 42 60 50 65 - - - - 365
BLB Industries - - - - - - - - - - * * * * - -
Digital Metal - - - - - - - - - 2 34 104 54 74 54 32
Fluicell - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Freemelt - - - - - - - - - - - 1 4 3 4 12
Wematter - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 5 7 15
Switzerland
Exaddon - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 3 5 10
Femtoprint - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 14 2
Sintratec - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Taiwan
Ackuretta - - - - - - - - - - * 27 254 3 5 60
MicroJet - - - - - - - - - - * 40 20 20 20 100
MiiCraft - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Tongtai - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
XYZprinting - - - - - - - - - - * * 310 280 3304 -
Turkey
Ermaksan - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 7 6 18
Loop3D - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * -
NovaFab - - - - - - - - - - - * 183 236 2604 -
Ukraine
Additive Laser Technology - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
xBeam - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 3 * * -
United Kingdom
MTT Technologies 10 15 15 16 - - - - - - - - - - - 92
Photocentric - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
Raplas - - - - - - - - - - - 11 22 24 244 81
Renishaw - - - - 74 124 174 264 394 594 654 684 784 * * -
RPS - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * -
WAAM3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 7
Wayland Additive - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 1
United States
3D Hybrid Solutions - - - - - - - - - - - 2 34 * * -
3D Platform - - - - - - - - - - 1904 2204 3504 600 6504 2,010
3D Systems 1944 1464 1184 3964 7334 1,3594 1,7654 2,1184 1,9254 1,6434 1,4804 2,3684 2,2754 2,0204 2,1004 24,574
3DXTech - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 154 15
Addere - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
Additec - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
Advanced Solutions - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
Allevi - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
Apis Cor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104 10
Azul3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
B9Creations - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
Carbon - - - - - - - - - - * * * * 2604 -
Cincinnati - - - - - - - - - - * * * 18 5 -
Coherent (prev. OR Laser) - - - - - - - - - - 46 65 604 554 - 226
Compound Dynamics - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 84 - 9
Cosine Additive - - - - - - - - - 12 154 44 34 24 2 38
Cubic Technologies 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13
Desktop Metal - - - - - - - - - - 357 312 250 1904 2004 1,309
Diabase - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 20 304 90
DM3D - - - - - - - - - - 2 24 14 14 14 7
DTM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 434
Essentium - - - - - - - - - - - - - 76 * -
ETEC (Envisiontec) 238 356 376 435 4 4 4 4
540 880 1,097 1,283 1,250 1,224 1,210 1,190 1,075 4 4 * * -
Evolve Additive - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 04 1
ExOne 174 164 74 4 4 13 29 28 26 33 41 64 55 4
494
554 597
Fabrisonic - - - - 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 5 44 44 20
Fonon - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Formalloy - - - - - - - - - - - 5 54 44 64 20
Formlabs - - - - - - - - - - 280 3104 3504 1,468 2,700 5,108
Fortify - - - - - - - - - - - - - 64 * -
Fusion3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 4
GE Additive - - - - - - - - - - - 2404 250 2004 2104 900
Helisys - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 377
HP - - - - - - - - - 124 375 5134 6504 6204 6504 2,820
Hybrid Manufacturing Tech. - - - - - - - - - - - - - 64 * -
Hyrel 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104 124 22
IC3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Impossible Objects - - - - - - - - - - - 3 4 34 2 12
Ingersoll Machine Tools - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JuggerBot 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 5 64 18
Kwambio - - - - - - - - - - - * * - - -
Laser Photonics - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 * -
LuxCreo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 754 75
Markforged - - - - - - - 54 504 1754 1,876 2,831 3,6404 1,6104 1,6504 11,837
Millebot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2
Nexa3D - - - - - - - - - - * * * 90 123 -
nScrypt - - - - - - - - - - * * * 7 104 -
Open Additive - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 64 64 15
Optomec7 13 19 25 24 19 21 25 40 63 63 58 56 60 42 51 643
Orbital Composites - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
POM 2 2 2 3 0 0 - - - - - - - - - 18
Re:3D - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Rize - - - - - - - - - 4 104 254 1204 1054 * -
RPM Innovations - - - - - - - 1 4 3 4 2 34 1 4 22

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Sanders Design Int. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 52
Schroff Development - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 172
Sciaky - - - - 1 04 0 2 3 3 5 6 2 2 3 27
Solidica 0 0 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 15
Solidscape 464 384 230 302 269 312 - - - - - - - - - 3,784
Sprintray - - - - - - - - - - - - - * 850 4 -
Stacker - - - - - - - - - - - * * - * -
Stratasys, Inc. 2,169 2,184 1,918 2,555 2,428 3,026 - - - - - - - - - 21,293
SunP Biotech - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * -
Sugino - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 * -
Tethon 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -
Thermwood - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * -
Titan Robotics - - - - - - - - 5 14 8 11 15 15 204 88
4
Tytus3D - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 04 1
UNIZ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104 580 590
Velo3D - - - - - - - - - - - 4 18 13 23 58
Viridis 3D - - - - - - - - 1 0 - - - - - 1
Xact Metal - - - - - - - - - - - 5 14 9 20 48
4
Xerox - - - - - - - - - 1 * * * * 1 -
Z Corp. 1,022 950 623 709 722 4 - - - - - - - - - - 7,029
Other - - - 1 - - - - - 3502 1,0322 1,6212 1,7342 4,6852 3,5022 12,955
Year Total 4,945 5,017 4,499 6,178 6,526 7,803 9,878 12,859 12,557 13,084 16,369 19,241 22,970 21,029 26,272
Cumulative Total 26,891 31,908 36,407 42,585 49,111 56,914 66,792 79,651 92,208 105,292 121,661 140,902 163,872 184,901 211,173
Footnotes:
* Included as part of “Other” (located near the bottom of the table).
1 Estimates were provided by system manufacturers and other industry sources in Japan.
2 Wohlers Associates has taken a conservative approach to estimating unit sales and does not want to inadvertently "inflate" figures for
companies that did not provide hard data.
3 Includes sales from the first half of the year only. Sales from the second half of the year were included in 3D Systems’ 2013 total. The
machine manufacturer did not supply the data.
4 Wohlers Associates’ estimate based on input from industry sources. The machine manufacturer did not supply the data.
5 Wohlers Associates’ estimate that includes FDM, PolyJet, and Solidscape, but excludes MakerBot.
6 Wohlers Associates’ estimate that includes FDM and PolyJet but excludes MakerBot. Prodways acquired Solidscape from Stratasys
in July 2018.
7 Includes both LENS and aerosol jet systems.
8 Includes sales of BeAM machines beginning in 2018.
9 See InnovatiQ for sales figures after 2020.
Desktop 3D printers Wohlers Associates defines desktop 3D printers as AM systems that sell
for less than $5,000. This category includes RepRap-derivative material
extrusion (MEX) products such as those from Cubicon, Formlabs, Prusa,
Tiertime, XYZprinting, and Zaxe. Desktop vat photopolymerization (VPP)
systems are also growing in prominence for prototyping, education, and
final part production in applications such as dentistry.
Sales of desktop 3D printers are often non-traditional and can be difficult

to track. Countless small companies around the world, including many
startups, produce, sell, resell, and distribute these products. Many parts,
kits, and subassemblies are available on Amazon, eBay, and other online
marketplaces.
Many companies, such as Formlabs, MakerBot, and Ultimaker, previously

sold desktop printers only and now sell products priced above $5,000.
Meanwhile, some systems priced less than $5,000 offer relatively large
build volumes, fine part quality, and good machine reliability. Many
systems are priced at 10 times more than desktop printers, but that does
not mean they are 10 times better. Many desktop printers are being used
productively for concept modeling, prototyping, and even some final part
production.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Sales growth Collectively, desktop systems have experienced astounding development

since 2012, as shown in the following graph. Sales growth was 7.0% in
2021, representing total revenue of an estimated $963.4 million. This
figure was calculated using sales from 28 system manufacturers. Growth
was 6.7% in 2020 and 19.4% in 2019. The following graph represents the
estimated unit sales each year.
The market for under $500 3D printers is believed to have grown

significantly over the past few years. Hundreds of products priced in the
$150–500 range can be found online. Many of them are produced in
regions of the world where product development and manufacturing costs
are low.
Because of the way the under $500 products are sold, it is challenging to
estimate unit sales by calendar year. Even the people closest to this market
segment are unsure and admit that the available information offers rough
estimates, at best.
The figures in the following section are at odds with the 2019–2021
estimates in the previous graph, which could be low. Reporting
methodologies can differ dramatically in some parts of the world.
China Desktop 3D printers from Chinese companies have gained a strong

by Dan Guo foothold in western markets. This is said to have been aided by efficient
supply chains, responsive R&D, convenient international commercial
services, and improved products. During the pandemic, consumers and
others in the U.S. and Europe imported desktop 3D printers from China to
manufacture personal protective equipment.
According to the Additive Manufacturing Alliance of China, more than 120

manufacturers of desktop 3D printers were operating in China in 2021.
Total sales volume was about 3.2 million units in 2021, with 90% being
exported. The total value of these exports was $580 million, doubling the
value from 2019. In 2020, desktop unit sales were about 2.8 million units
in China.
The following graph shows the estimated number of exported desktop 3D

printers from China over the past three years. The figures are in millions of
units. Anycubic and Creality are responsible for almost half of Chinese
desktop printer sales, with combined annual sales of more than 1.5 million
units in 2021.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Growth in China’s desktop printer exports, courtesy

of Additive Manufacturing Alliance of China
Some companies offer high-performance desktop 3D printers, often used

for series production of spare parts. Raise3D has sold more than 10,000
units. Hunan Vanguard Group purchased 300 MEX desktop 3D printers to
manufacture safety goggles and other parts. Manufacturers of desktop 3D
printers are attracting capital investment. According to the Nanjixiong 3D
printing business directory, five manufacturers received combined
investments totaling more than $100 million in 2021.
Future growth is expected to slow for desktop 3D printers sold for

individual use. This is partly due to market saturation and the impacts of
the pandemic nearing an end. However, the use of desktop 3D printers is
expected to grow with increased knowledge of the technology.
Materials and R&D Most manufacturers of desktop 3D printers report that polylactic acid
(PLA) is the material making the most money. Survey results show that
63.6% of respondents reported that PLA produced the most money, with
the remaining 36.4% from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS),
photopolymers, and composites.
The survey showed that manufacturers of desktop 3D printers spent an

average of 30.7% of their annual budget on R&D. The main focus was on
new materials development and larger and faster systems. ZYYX released
the ZYYX Pro II MEX system with a build volume of 285 x 235 x 210 mm
(11.2 x 9.6 x 8.3 in). Prusa of the Czech Republic released the Prusa XL and
SL1S Speed, large MEX and VPP systems, respectively. The company also
released a filament made from 100% recycled PLA.
To scale production using desktop systems, companies are doing R&D to

increase reliability and create an efficient and reliable workflow. In
October 2021, Prusa showcased its automated print farm called the Prusa

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Pro AFS at Expo 2020 Dubai. The operation includes 34 Original Prusa 3D
printers that run autonomously. A print farm of more than 600 printers is
running at the company’s headquarters in Prague.
Print farm of desktop 3D printers, courtesy of Prusa
AM material sales In 2021, $2.598 billion was spent globally on materials for all AM
industrial and desktop systems. This represents an increase of 23.4% over
the $2.105 billion generated in 2020. These dollar figures include sales of
powders, liquid photopolymers, pellets, filaments, wires, sheet materials,
and all other materials used for AM.
The following graph and table provide a 21-year history of global material
sales for AM systems. The numbers are in millions of dollars.

2001 $71.0 2012 $417.0
2002 $81.2 2013 $493.9
2003 $93.4 2014 $640.0
2004 $128.9 2015 $768.3
2005 $151.0 2016 $903.0
2006 $189.5 2017 $1,133.7
2007 $220.9 2018 $1,494.7
2008 $238.0 2019 $1,916.1
2009 $217.8 2020 $2,105.2
2010 $265.9 2021 $2,598.2
2011 $327.1

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The following chart shows the $2.598 billion materials market segmented
by material type. In 2021, for the first time, polymer powders overtook the
photopolymer segment. Historically, the photopolymer segment has been
the largest, due in part to its popularity for prototyping and other
applications. PBF is believed to be the most popular process for final part
production, so the recent growth in powders points to the strong adoption
of AM for production applications.
In 2021, photopolymers were second, and polymer filaments were third in

market share. Metal has been available for about half of the industry’s 34-
year history and represents 18.2% of total materials revenue in 2021. The
“Other” segment includes ceramics, waxes, and materials for binder jetting
(BJT) and sheet lamination (SHL).
For three decades, photopolymer has been the dominant AM material.

Over the past five years, as seen in the following chart, polymer for PBF
(green) has overtaken photopolymer (blue). The values in the vertical axis
represent millions of dollars in revenue from these materials. Wohlers
Associates expects polymer powders to continue to outpace
photopolymers as the dominant AM polymer material over the coming
years as series production applications increase.
Photopolymers An estimated $654.2 million was spent on photopolymers in 2021. This is

an increase of 3.0% from 2020. The following graph and table provide a
20-year history of photopolymer sales for AM systems worldwide. The
estimates shown are in millions of dollars.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

2002 $39.4 2012 $189.0
2003 $47.3 2013 $228.9
2004 $65.6 2014 $298.4
2005 $80.7 2015 $326.6
2006 $89.6 2016 $352.2
2007 $102.5 2017 $408.5
2008 $114.0 2018 $491.5
2009 $103.7 2019 $611.4
2010 $122.8 2020 $634.9
2011 $155.8 2021 $654.2
Polymer powders Worldwide consumption of thermoplastic polymers for PBF systems

grew to $902.0 million in 2021, up 43.3% from 2020. This includes
powders for laser PBF and materials for Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) systems
from HP. The estimates in the following graph and table are in millions of
dollars.

2008 $55.0 2015 $181.0
2009 $62.0 2016 $225.8
2010 $83.0 2017 $291.5
2011 $104.0 2018 $402.1
2012 $105.0 2019 $539.1
2013 $135.0 2020 $629.2
2014 $160.0 2021 $902.0

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Filaments Stratasys has dominated filament sales since its first MEX products were
introduced in 1991. It is believed that the company is the top provider of
filaments for the AM market. The company does not publish filament sales.
In recent years, hundreds of companies have developed and

commercialized desktop MEX 3D printers. This has sparked new
commercial development of filaments. Most desktop printers are “open,”
meaning that they accept third-party materials. Most of these filaments are
sold at competitive prices.
Wohlers Associates estimates that thermoplastic filament sales grew by

24.6% to $515.9 million in 2021, as shown in the following graph and
table. This compares to $414.1 in 2020. The estimates in the chart are in
millions of dollars and include all filament products, including those from
Stratasys.

2015 $160.6 2019 $394.3
2016 $184.2 2020 $414.1
2017 $225.7 2021 $515.9
2018 $308.6
Metals Revenue from metals for AM grew 23.5% in 2021 to an estimated $473.6
million, up from $383.4 in 2020. Wohlers Associates began to track the
sales and growth of metals for AM in 2009, as shown in the following
graph and table. The estimates are in millions of dollars. Metals used in
AM are primarily powders, but also include wires, filaments, sheets, and
tapes.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

2009 $12.0 2016 $126.8
2010 $13.5 2017 $183.4
2011 $18.0 2018 $260.2
2012 $24.9 2019 $332.7
2013 $32.6 2020 $383.4
2014 $48.7 2021 $473.6
2015 $88.1
Service providers AM service providers are companies that produce parts and offer other
services on a contract basis to a wide range of organizations. In recent
years, the scope of paid-parts services has grown. It includes conventional
service bureaus that have been in business since the early 1990s. It also
includes AM marketplaces and communities such as Sculpteo, Shapeways,
Xometry, and independent 3D print shops.
A service provider may be a single individual with a desktop 3D printer

selling parts locally. At the other end of the spectrum are “mega” service
providers with more than 100 industrial machines installed at several
locations worldwide. Companies within this category may refer to
themselves as service providers, job shops, or contract manufacturers.
Primary service market Independent service providers worldwide generated an estimated $6.235
billion from the sale of parts produced by AM systems in 2021. This is up
18.3% from the $5.270 billion in 2020. This revenue excludes sales
generated by service provider businesses within companies such as
Stratasys. The $6.235 billion represents nearly 69.2% of total AM
services in 2021, which reached $9.015 billion.
The following graph shows service provider revenue estimates (in millions
of dollars) for the past 28 years. The bars represent primary revenue
only—money from parts produced on AM equipment. They do not include
revenue from secondary processes, such as tooling (not produced on AM
equipment), parts made from this tooling, castings, or machined parts from
computer numerical control (CNC) processes. Also, they exclude design,
engineering, and all other services.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Service provider survey Since 2004, Wohlers Associates has collected input from service
providers to help determine the state of the industry. Most respondents
are “traditional” service providers as defined previously. However,
several online marketplaces also contribute.
For this year’s report, 117 companies in 26 countries participated in a

formal survey. Of the participating companies, 39 are from the U.S., 13
from Germany, seven each from India and Italy, six from the UK, and five
from Canada. Four each are from Belgium, South Africa, Sweden and
Switzerland, and three each from New Zealand and Turkey. Two each are
from Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Spain. One each is from
Austria, Brazil, Hungary, Israel, Korea, the Netherlands, Portugal, Saudi
Arabia, Taiwan, and Thailand.
Participation in the survey is voluntary. It is believed that companies doing

well are more likely to respond than those who had a poor year. Also, the
population of respondents changes slightly each year. Some companies are
acquired, go out of business, or stop responding, while startups and other
companies participate in the survey for the first time. Many companies,
thankfully, respond year after year.
Contributing service The following table lists 117 service providers from around the world
providers that generously contributed information and data for this report.
Company Country Website

+90 Turkey www.arti90.com
3D MetPrint Sweden www.3dmetprint.com
3D Musketeers U.S. www.3dmusketeers.com
3D Product Development India www.3dpd.net
3DChimera U.S. www.3dchimera.com
3DEO U.S. www.3deo.co
3Dit Saudi Arabia www.3dit.net
3D-LABS Germany www.3d-labs.de
The 3D Printing Store U.S. www.the3dprintingstore.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

3Faktur Germany www.3faktur.com
4C Engineering Turkey www.4c.com.tr
Addema Sweden www.addema.se
Additive Engineering Solutions U.S. www.additiveeng.com
Addman Engineering U.S. www.addmangroup.com
AdvancedTek U.S. www.advancedtek.com
Advantage Prototype Systems U.S. www.aps3d.com
Agile Manufacturing Canada www.agile-manufacturing.com
Akhani 3D South Africa www.akhani3d.com
AM Korea South Korea www.amkorea21.com
American Additive Manufacturing U.S. www.americanadditive.com
AML Technologies Australia www.amltec.com
Any-Shape Belgium www.any-shape.com
Applied Rapid Technologies U.S. www.artcorp.com
Aran R&D Israel www.aran-rd.com
Aristo-Cast U.S. www.aristo-cast.com
Arptech Australia www.arptech.com.au
ARRK Europe UK www.arrkeurope.com
Avid Product Development U.S. www.avidpd.com
Bastech U.S. www.bastech.com
BEAMIT Group Italy www.beam-it.eu
Bermark Design Thailand www.bermark.com
Bond3D Netherlands www.bond3d.com
CA Models UK www.camodels.co.uk
Caracol Italy www.caracol-am.com
Cerhum Belgium www.cerhum.com
CIRP Germany www.cirp.de
Creabis Germany www.creabis.de
CRP Technology Italy www.crp-group.com
CUT CRPM South Africa www.cut.ac.za
Currant 3D U.S. www.currant3d.com
Custom Prototypes Canada www.customprototypes.com
CY3D Printing U.S. www.cy3dprinting.com
Damvig (Prototal) Denmark www.damvig.dk
Davinci Denmark www.davinci.dk
Delray Systems U.S. www.3d-printer.com
DI Labs U.S. www.dilabs.cc
Dignita-Can Tech Taiwan www.digital-can.com
DPW Dependable Pattern Works U.S. www.dpwcorp.com
DT2 New Concept Portugal www.distrim2.pt
EBK-Hungary Hungary www.ebkhungary.com
Ecoparts Switzerland www.ecoparts.ch
Enesty Germany www.enesty.org
EPIK Belgium www.epik-company.com
FI Innovations New Zealand www.f-i.co.nz
FIT Germany www.pro-fit.de
Fixie UK www.fixie3d.com/
Fuchshofer Advanced Manufacturing Austria www.fuchshofer.at
GF Precicast Additive Switzerland www.precicast.com
GoProto U.S. www.goproto.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Humtown Products U.S. www.humtown.com
Idonial Spain www.idonial.com
Imaginarium India www.imaginarium.io
Ineo Spain www.ineo.es
Innomia Czech Republic www.innomia.cz
Industrial Plastic Fabrications UK www.ipfl.co.uk
Keselowski Advanced Manufacturing U.S. www.kamsolutions.com
Lasertech Sweden www.lasertech.se
LaserTeck Germany www.laserteck.de
LEP 3D Printing New Zealand www.lep.net.nz
LGM U.S. www.lgm3d.com
Laser Prototypes Europe UK www.laserproto.com
MakeLab U.S. www.makelab.nyc
Marco Polo Products India www.marcopolo.co.in
Materialise Belgium www.materialise.be
Mentis 3D South Africa www.mentis3d.com
MET Company Italy www.e-manufacturing.it
Metal Heart South Africa www.metalheart.co.za
Met-l-flo U.S. www.metlflo.com
Metropolis Design U.S. www.metropolisdesign.com
Michael Sander Kunststofftechnik Germany www.sander-kunststofftechnik.de
Midwest Prototyping U.S. www.midwestproto.com
Objectify Technologies India www.myobjectify.com
Oerlikon Switzerland www.oerlikon.com
Ci-Esse Italy www.ci-esse.eu
Paarts Additive Czech Republic www.paarts.com
PLG Global UK www.plgglobal.co.uk
Poligon Muhendislik Turkey www.poligonmuhendislik.com
Precision ADM Canada www.precisionadm.com
Print Parts U.S. www.printparts.com
PrinterPrezz U.S. www.printerprezz.com
ProM Italy www.polomeccatronica.it
Proto3000 Canada www.proto3000.com
ProtoCAM U.S. www.protocam.com
ProtoLabs U.S. www.protolabs.com
ProtoShape Switzerland www.protoshape.ch
Protosys Technologies India www.protosystech.com
Prototal Sweden www.prototal.se
Rapid Advanced Manufacturing New Zealand www.ram3d.co.nz
Rapid Prototype and Manufacturing U.S. www.rpplusm.com
Rapid Prototyping U.S. www.rapidps.com
RapidMade U.S. www.rapidmade.com
rapidprototyping.de Germany www.rapidprototyping.de
Rauch CNC Germany www.am-rauch.com
Realize U.S. www.realizeinc.com
Robert Hofmann Germany www.hofmann-imm.de
SICAM U.S. www.sicam.com
Solaxis Ingenious Manufacturing Canada www.solaxis.ca
Solidiform U.S. www.solidiform.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Spectroplast Switzerland www.spectroplast.com
Speed Part Germany www.speedpart.de
Spring Italy www.springitalia.com
Stratnel Technologies India www.stratnel.com
STS Technical Design U.S. www.sts-ts.com
SuperCraft3D India www.supercraft3d.com
The Technology House U.S. www.tth.com
Trideo Brasil www.trideo3d.com
Vertex Manufacturing U.S. www.vertexmanufacturing.com
Spectroplast Switzerland www.spectroplast.com
Survey results An estimated total of 2,005 industrial AM systems are installed at the 117
companies that responded to the service provider survey. In 2021,
independent service providers reported overall business growth of 18.3%.
The technology with the highest number of installed systems among the
survey respondents was stereolithography (SLA) from 3D Systems, a VPP
technology. According to the survey results, 305 SLA systems were
operating at these companies in 2021. For the second consecutive year, the
combined number of polymer PBF systems from EOS and HP exceeded the
number of SLA systems, with a total of 324 machines installed at these
companies.
Polymer PBF from EOS is the second most popular technology, with 216
machines installed at the surveyed service providers. MEX from Stratasys
is the third most popular, with 131 units in operation. This is followed
closely by MJF from HP, a PBF process, with 118 systems in operation. The
most popular metal AM technology is from EOS, with 115 installed
systems, followed by Concept Laser from GE Additive, with 85 systems
operating at the 117 companies.
In 2021, 51.3% of the service providers surveyed manufactured polymer

parts only, an increase from 47.1% in 2020. The survey showed that 11.3%
of companies are producing metal AM parts only, down from 16.5% in
2020. The remaining 37.4% produce both metal and polymer parts, up
from 36.4% in 2020.
Pre- and post-processing In recent years, the AM industry has become more aware of the need for
design for manufacturing (DfAM). One of the key reasons is to reduce the
time and expense of pre- and post-processing of parts. Service providers

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
were asked what proportion of their part costs are attributed to pre-
processing (i.e., model repair, build orientation, part nesting, build
preparation, etc.), printing (i.e., actual building of the parts), and post-
processing (i.e., support material removal, cleaning, surface treatment,
etc.). The results were divided among service providers that produce
metal AM only, polymer AM only, and both. The following table shows the
results for 2021.
Metal Polymer Both

Pre-processing 10.2% 12.4% 10.2%
Printing 61.2% 62.9% 62.5%
Post-processing 28.6% 24.7% 27.3%
The following chart shows the proportion of pre-processing (brown),

printing (green), and post-processing (blue) for metals only since 2017.
The figures show that post-processing costs are slowly increasing.
The following graph shows pre-processing (brown), printing (green), and

post-processing (blue) for polymers since 2017. It shows that the cost of
printing is slowly decreasing. The slight increase in post-processing can
potentially be linked to the use of more advanced and sometimes
expensive finishing techniques.
Most profitable Service providers were asked which AM process was most profitable in
AM processes 2021. At 16.8%, polymer PBF from EOS was the top choice, as shown in
the following chart. MJF from HP was second, followed by SLA from 3D
Systems (3DS). Metal PBF from EOS was the top metal AM technology.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The “Other” category shows that 25.3% of the survey respondents said
their most profitable AM process is from less-established system
manufacturers. These are typically young companies that have not gained
significant market share.
In 2020, the top choice for service providers was PBF from HP. The “Other”
systems include BJT systems from 3D Systems, ExOne, and Voxeljet, and
PBF from Concept Lasers and Renishaw.
Those surveyed were asked which technology they would most likely
purchase if they were going to expand their AM capacity. The most popular
response was MJF from HP, as shown in the following chart. The second
and third most popular were metal PBF from EOS and polymer MEX from
Stratasys. The responses to this question show an increasing interest in
PBF systems. About 40% of the systems in the “Other” category are from
3D Systems’ material jetting (MJT) and metal PBF systems, Desktop Metal,
DMG Mori, ExOne, GE Additive (Arcam), Renishaw, and SLM Solutions. The
remaining systems in “Other” are products from less established
manufacturers.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Service providers have traditionally purchased systems from established

AM manufacturers such as 3D Systems, EOS, and Stratasys. However, in
2021, service providers added 230 less-established AM systems (66.5%)
out of a total of 346 machines purchased.
This is the second consecutive year that more machines have been
purchased from less-established companies. It shows a possible trend
toward young companies with success at competing with more developed
manufacturers. Many of the established system manufacturers can be
found in Part 8 of this report.
Most profitable materials Service providers were asked which material is making the most money
for their companies. The following two charts show the most profitable
polymers and metals.
Polyamide (PA), a thermoplastic also known as nylon, is the most

profitable polymer according to the survey respondents, as shown in the
following chart. In 2021, 48.9% of respondents said PA was the most
profitable material, down from 62.2% in 2020.
The following table shows the percentage of metals that companies

reported as the most profitable. Aluminum ranks at the top, according to
the respondents, with 22.0% of the total. In 2020, aluminum was the most
profitable according to 32.7% of companies. Inconel grew from 8.2% in
2020 to 19.5% in 2021. Meanwhile, 17-4PH stainless steel grew from 6.1%
to 17.1% over the same period. Titanium’s share remained the same at
12.2%.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Revenue growth The following graph shows the mean rate of growth in service provider
revenues from primary services over the past 17 years. Primary services
consist of revenues from parts produced directly on AM systems. In 2021,
the mean growth rate increased to 18.3% from 7.1% in 2020.
The following chart shows the revenue growth segmented by small (0–20
employees), small-medium (21–50 employees), medium (51–100
employees), medium-large (101–250 employees), and large companies
(251+ employees). Medium-sized company revenue grew the most in
2021, compared to others.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The following graph shows the percentage of respondents that added AM

systems to their operations. In 2021, 81.4% of service providers added
new machines to their inventory. This is a significant increase over 2020
when only 44.6% of these companies added machines. In 2019, 76.4%
added new machines. The low rate of machines purchased in 2020 was
likely associated with the pandemic, which affected the entire industry.
Competition An important historic development for the service provider industry was
the transition by system manufacturers into this market. 3D Systems
began acquiring established service providers in 2009. This signaled the
start of system manufacturers competing with some of their best
customers. 3D Systems acquired 17 service providers from 2009 to 2015.
In June 2021, 3D Systems sold its service business, branded Quickparts,
to Trilantic North America, a private equity firm, for $82 million.
In 2014, Stratasys acquired Harvest Technologies and Solid Concepts. At

the time, they were two of the largest and most respected service
providers in the U.S. They combined with Stratasys’ internal service
operation to become Stratasys Direct Manufacturing. The company uses
metal PBF systems from EOS to produce metal AM parts.
Other AM system manufacturers operate as service providers. Voxeljet has

service centers in China, Germany, the UK, and the U.S. ExOne operates
production service centers in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. Digital Metal runs
a service center in Sweden.
This competition can be a challenge for independent service providers.

Competition comes in many forms, including CNC-machined parts, which
are often popular and cost-competitive, especially in Asia. Despite these
competitive pressures, the AM service provider industry continues to grow
and thrive.
Some companies have developed proprietary AM processes and operate

solely as service providers. Bond3D produces polymer polyether ether
ketone (PEEK) parts using its MEX systems. 3DEO in California uses its
proprietary metal hybrid BJT/milling technology to manufacture series
production parts. In July 2021, the company shipped its one-millionth part
to a customer.
The service provider industry remains strong, even with the challenges
presented by the pandemic. The sector showed an 18.3% growth in
primary service revenues. Also, 81.4% of responding service providers
added capacity in 2021. The AM industry will provide opportunities for
continued growth in all categories of this important industry segment.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Comments from Service providers were invited to share comments on their business. The
service providers following anonymous remarks were found to be interesting and
insightful. The comments were edited for spelling, grammar, and clarity,
but every attempt was made to preserve their meaning and intent. All
comments were written in early 2022.
“We experienced a lot of disruption in day-to-day operations due to the

pandemic. This has put some pressure on our business. Despite that, the
movement toward series manufactured parts is steadily increasing. We
adopted vapor smoothing for PBF post-processing. Post-processing
equipment is costly, and it is hard to justify the purchase. Nonetheless, we
believe it is important to keep moving toward automation wherever
possible. We are considering an AI manufacturing operating system sooner
than planned.”
“Despite the pandemic, plastic 3D printing increased in 2021.”
“Growth was good in 2021, and we are excited about the prospects of
significant growth in our AM production business in 2022.”
“We saw an exceptionally strong first half of 2021, but business slowed
considerably in Q3, before seeing signs of recovery in Q4. Overall, we have
experienced significantly higher volatility since the beginning of the
pandemic. Intervals of full utilization of our systems were quickly followed
by intervals of low utilization. To some extent, this reflects the uncertainty
in the industry. Our customers are ordering only what they currently need.
We hope that 2022 will be a step toward steady and stable growth.”
“Everything grew in 2021. We were pleased to see the growth in metal

AM.”
“Our business grew in 2021. However, it grew from a low starting point
after 2020, which was a tough year due to the pandemic. Our business is
not yet back to pre-2019 levels. We hoped business would increase
because of the general decline in conventional manufacturing due to
factors such as shortages in semiconductors. We did not see much of an
impact.”
“Overall growth in 2021 was positive after being relatively flat in 2020.
Notable problems have centered around finding and adding qualified
employees.”
“It was a very challenging year due to the pandemic. With the second and
third waves in 2021, the medical device industry struggled to recover.
Many elective surgeries were cancelled or postponed because hospital
beds were taken by COVID-19 patients. This had a negative effect on our
business. We are exploring opportunities to export to reach additional
markets.”
“The pandemic had a major impact on our business due to reduced

budgets from our customers. However, we received additional inquiries
because of the stressed supply chain.”
“The pandemic was a heavy blow to the AM segment of our business. We

found that large system manufacturers who provide services as a business
were selling finished parts for less than our raw material cost. We have

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
seen no resurgence in this part of our business. We expect it will not come
back because many of our customers who were forced to work remotely
adapted to new waiting periods to get parts. It is apparent that price is
more important than short lead times and part quality. We currently have
no plans for acquiring new equipment and intend on liquidating some of
our machines.”
“We received fewer prototype orders because our customers opted to buy
their own low-cost 3D printers. Functional parts demand did increase for
small series parts and even production runs of up to 50,000 pieces. For
series production, quality inspection is requested by our customers. We
have invested a lot in measurement tools and 3D scanning equipment.”
“The industry currently has a lot of skepticism, but things are changing
every day.”
“We see increased interest in AM, particularly for serial metal production.
This comes mainly from companies and customers who have been
experimenting with AM for several years. Reluctancy still remains in the
market overall. Most companies continue to order prototypes.”
“Short AM lead times in 2020 led many of our customers to rethink their
AM strategy. Although production work declined in 2021, we received
significantly more prototype orders that will hopefully lead to production
using AM. In 2020, many engineers quickly learned how to design for AM.
AM also came to the rescue with material shortages in other
manufacturing industries. We were able to transition a number of projects
from traditional manufacturing to AM due to a shortage of available
material in traditional channels.”
“The market for end-use parts is the fastest-growing segment.”
“We saw a positive impact to our business from supply chain disruptions.
New customers who had not previously adopted AM considered it an
alternative to traditional methods. Lower-cost platforms, such as
Markforged and the Fuse 1 from Formlabs, have improved considerably.
This allows us to compete aggressively with service providers running
high-cost systems. We can increase throughput to meet production
quantities with far less capital.”
“Finding business cases remains critical in the AM industry, especially for

aeronautics. Our strategy is to pursue developments and qualifications of
new high-value-added parts for specific applications. Our new facilities
with more floor space will help us grow in the next few years.”
“The MJF system from HP is a very efficient and a high-revenue workhorse

that we have built our business around. The biggest drawback is part size.
We will be looking for larger capacity machines in the future, including
PBF and large-scale MEX.”
“2021 was a very hard year for us. Supply chains decimated the food
packaging market, which is one of our best segments. Our aerospace work
died out in 2020 and has not returned. We are trying to remain optimistic
and are growing the 3D scanning side of the business. The hope is to
strengthen the printing business with good scanners.”

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
“The pandemic resulted in a huge increase in demand for 3D-printed

polymer PPE and COVID testing products. The value of these parts
overtook our metal AM revenue for 2021, but the demand for pandemic-
related 3D-printed polymer products is expected to decline in 2022. A
downturn in aerospace demand was seen in 2021, but we are seeing
increasing interest.”
“We added two new polymer PBF machines from EOS for serial
production. Our prototyping business is declining.”
“The pandemic is still an issue for manufacturers and the supply chain. We
have supported some companies with supply chain issues. We had some
growth, but overall, 2021 was tough. We are hoping to see more stability in
the future and are excited about 2022 with many potential opportunities.”
“The pandemic had a big impact on our business around medical metal
implants because many people opted to delay surgeries.”
“It was a solid year for us with controlled growth and strategic investment
in equipment. We expect more than 20% growth in 2022 as the pandemic
hopefully recedes.”
“Our growth was slightly better in 2021 compared to 2020. However, we

are still below 2019 numbers. Hopefully, 2022 will be better, and it is
already showing signs that it will be.”
“Our business was affected a lot by the pandemic in 2021 with fewer
aerospace projects. We started new projects with electric and alternative
engine companies. For 2022, we expect a continuous increase in sales.”
“We were surprised that the pandemic affected sales so much. We are back
to pre-COVID numbers now, thankfully.”
“Our 2021 business has seen good growth over 2020. It mainly was from a
large increase in MJF printing. We recently added our second MJF machine
and some small MEX machines. We saw an increase in AM for short-run
production in 2021. Our MJF systems are being used for both prototyping
and short-run production. Our VPP technology is still being used for
prototyping. However, our VPP job count is decreasing as more projects
move to MJF systems.”
“In the past two years, we saw our business from the automotive sector
suffer significantly. Fortunately, our machine-building and urban
electromobility business made up for it.”
“We are seeing continued acceptance and growth in final part production
using AM. We see this as a significant growth opportunity. Hardware has
outpaced the capabilities of software and digital workflow systems.
Physical and digital gaps in downstream post-processing workflows, such
as mechanical and vapor smoothing, still exist. Significant labor, time, and
one-off process development are required to achieve consistent, quality
results. The market is ideal for mass customization and personalization.
The level of success will depend on product designs and innovation
leveraging final product consistency and streamlined workflows to reduce
time and cost.”

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
“AM is penetrating many non-conventional sectors because of VPP systems

from Formlabs. These systems require much less capital investment
compared to traditional VPP machines. Service providers are facing
revenue pressure due to increased competition.”
“Business is picking up, but competition is still strong. We are investing in

automation for pre- and post-processing.”
“We are moving from prototyping using AM to full-scale production runs.”
“2021 was a tough year for AM because many customers cut back in
spending on new technologies.”
“Demand maintained its 2020 level with a decrease in orders from the
automotive industry. In our region, capturing the market is important,
particularly with the installation of an MJF system from HP to provide
services.”
“Business is recovering and expected to grow. We are seeing more traction

on the non-AM sides of our tooling and injection-molding business.”
“The pandemic was very difficult to work through, but we made it as an

industry. Bringing the supply chain back into the U.S., coupled with
environmental, social, and governance initiatives, created a strong tailwind
for future growth.”
“The pandemic affected staff, so growth was not a focus.”
“2021 was a great year for our company. We installed a BJT system from
ExOne and more traditional machining to expand our metal 3D printing
market. Our market share has increased in the field of polymer printing.
We completed five large and many small projects in 2021. We made a
connection with a university to create a department for teaching 3D
printing and DfAM.”
Investment in Demand for AM products and services has largely recovered from the
impact of the pandemic. Some companies reported activity below pre-
publicly traded pandemic levels, in part due to ongoing supply-chain challenges affecting
companies both suppliers and customers. Supply-chain disruptions that began in
by Brian Drab and Blake Keating 2020 worsened in 2021 and have continued into 2022. Many industry
executives see recent supply-chain gaps as an opportunity because AM
technologies help to bring flexibility and resiliency to supply chains.
The number of publicly traded AM companies continues to grow, with

Markforged and Velo3D going public in the second half of 2021. Shares of
publicly traded AM companies were volatile in 2021. For example, shares
of 3D Systems began 2021 at $10, jumped to $57 in February, and then
traded at $18 in May. They rebounded to $40 in June and traded lower
through the beginning of 2022, with the price reaching around $15 in
March 2022.
Shares of Desktop Metal, Stratasys, and other AM companies followed a

similar pattern. The volatility in AM stock prices was caused by
expectations for economic recovery, optimism regarding vaccines,

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
accommodative monetary policy, and fiscal stimulus. These reasons are

generally applicable to the entire stock market and were largely related to
the impacts of the pandemic.
Further expansion in the valuations of AM companies was driven by

expectations that AM would play an expanded role in the post-pandemic
economy. The expectation is that AM would offer companies and
governments supply-chain security and manufacturing flexibility, should a
similar event occur in the future. More recently, valuation multiples have
contracted, in line with an overall decline in valuation multiples of
technology companies.
As of March 2022, 3D Systems and Stratasys continued to be the AM

companies with the largest market capitalization, at about $2 billion and
$1.5 billion, respectively. Velo3D ($1.2 billion), Desktop Metal ($1.1
billion), and Materialise ($1.1 billion) are not far behind.
Demand for 3D Systems’ products and services has generally returned to—
and in some markets, exceeded—pre-pandemic levels. The company’s
healthcare business has performed especially well, in large part due to the
strength of its products for the dental aligner market. Stratasys has faced a
slower recovery, compared to 3D Systems. 3D Systems’ revenue grew 32%
organically in 2021. Stratasys’ revenue grew 14% organically and remains
about 5% below 2019 revenue, in part due to a slower recovery in
consumables. Stratasys’ consumables revenue did not exceed 2019 levels
until Q4 2021.
The revenues of less-established AM companies were less impacted by the

pandemic. For example, Markforged’s revenue declined 1% year-over-year
in 2020, but was projected to grow 24% in 2021 based on the midpoint of
management’s guidance. Velo3D’s revenue growth has remained robust,
up 45% in 2021, driven by strong demand for its Sapphire metal AM
machines.
While 3D Systems experienced solid growth in 2021, the company has

delivered a series of largely disappointing revenue results in recent years.
On an organic basis, 3D Systems’ revenue declined 12% in 2020, declined
7% in 2019, and increased 5% in 2018 (supported by the dental aligner
industry). Revenue growth was relatively flat in 2017 and declined 5% in
both 2016 and 2015. The company’s revenue growth rate has decelerated
substantially since reporting organic growth of 25% in 2012, 30% in 2013,
and 14% in 2014. Stratasys experienced a similar slowdown, with an
organic revenue decline of 18% in 2020, following declines of 2% in 2019,
1% in both 2018 and 2017, 3% in 2016, and 10% in 2015. The company
reported organic revenue growth of 27% in 2012, 25% in 2013, and 32%
in 2014.
AM companies continue to attract the attention of investors. This is due to

growth characteristics, market opportunities, and disruptive potential,
coupled with ongoing media coverage. 3D Systems, Stratasys, and Velo3D
(which went public in September 2021) are the largest publicly traded AM
companies in the U.S. according to market capitalization. Stratasys trades
on the Nasdaq exchange under the ticker symbol SSYS. 3D Systems and
Velo3D trade on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker
symbols DDD and VLD, respectively. Desktop Metal also trades on the

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
NYSE under the ticker symbol DM. Other publicly traded AM companies on
the Nasdaq include Materialise (MTLS), Nano Dimension (NNDM), and
Voxeljet (VJET). SLM Solutions (AM3D) trades on the Xetra platform in
Frankfurt, Germany.
Nano Dimension’s revenue was around $10 million in 2021. The company
has amassed a significant amount of cash and could continue to make
acquisitions that will change the AM industry landscape. Nano Dimension
completed 11 stock offerings since February 2020 that collectively added
more than $1.5 billion in cash to the company’s balance sheet. The
company has acquired four companies from April 2021 through February
2022 for a total of about $190 million, split between cash and stock. Since
its establishment, Nano Dimension has sold about 65 machines, used
primarily for the fabrication of circuit boards.
AM stock price performance has been mixed, compared with the broader
market indices. In 2021, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow)
increased 19% and the S&P 500 increased 29%. As of the close on March 7,
2022, the Dow was down 13% and the S&P 500 was down 19%, year-to-
date. These changes in the major indices provide reference points when
comparing the changes in AM company stock prices.
The potential for pandemic-stimulated demand and other factors

contributed to significant increases in the share prices for AM companies
in early 2021. However, ongoing pandemic-related headwinds and
investor rotation has resulted in some sell-offs. Stratasys entered 2021
with a share price of $20.72 and exited the year at $24.49 (up 18%). 3D
Systems entered 2021 at $10.48 and exited at $21.54 (up 106%).
Materialise’s shares decreased 56% in 2021, Voxeljet decreased 40%,
Desktop Metal decreased 71%, and SLM Solutions decreased 10%.
Markforged began trading on the NYSE on July 15, 2021, closing the first
day of trading at a share price of $7.76. As of March 7, 2022, Markforged’s
shares were trading at $3.33. Velo3D began trading on the NYSE on
September 30, 2021, closing at $8.37. As of March 7, 2022, Velo3D’s shares
were trading at $6.82.
In recent years, several private competitors have received significant

interest from the investment community, and some have captured
substantial market share. Three of these companies, Desktop Metal,
Markforged, and Velo3D, have gone public through special-purpose
acquisition companies (SPACs). Other private companies that have raised
significant funding in private investment rounds include Carbon and
Formlabs. Ultimaker has also quietly grown its revenue base under private
equity ownership. Its 2021 revenue is likely to be in the range of €70–80
million.
Markforged was acquired by a SPAC called one in July 2021. The deal
valued the company at $1.7 billion and delivered $361 million in gross
proceeds to Markforged (net proceeds of $318 million). The company’s
stock was trading with a market capitalization of $619 million as of March
7, 2022. Through September 2021, Markforged reported about $65 million
in revenue and an operating loss of $31 million. Over the same period,
gross margin ranged from 57% to 60%. Markforged has an installed
machine base of more than 10,000 units. The company’s growth has been
supported by demand for 3D printers capable of building continuous-fiber
and chopped-fiber reinforced-parts.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In September 2021, a SPAC called Jaws Spitfire acquired Velo3D in a deal

that valued the company at $1.6 billion. Gross proceeds from the deal were
$318 million and net proceeds totaled $274 million. As of March 7, 2022,
Velo3D’s stock was trading with a market capitalization of $1.2 billion. The
company’s revenue grew 45% in 2021 to $27 million. Gross margin has
been affected by ongoing supply-chain disruptions, finishing 2021 at
18.1%, down from 33.6% in 2020.
Velo3D produces metal AM systems that employ a proprietary printing

process that provides engineers with a high level of design freedom. The
company’s system includes design, processing, and quality analysis
software. The company is in an early stage of growing its installed base,
with 46 machines in operation by the end of 2021. Velo3D’s patented
technology has already gained traction with notable customers, such as
SpaceX, which expanded its fleet of Velo3D printers in 2021. Velo3D has
built a substantial backlog for its Sapphire XC printers, providing strong
visibility to the company’s $89 million revenue target for 2022.
Carbon has raised more than $680 million in funding and reportedly
received a valuation of about $2.4 billion in its latest funding round in
2019. The company has been successful in the sporting goods industry,
serving customers such as Adidas and Specialized. In 2021, Carbon’s
management announced that Rawlings is using the company’s technology
in a line of baseball gloves. Management reported another year of growth
in 2021 and indicated that the company continues to progress toward
profitability with a strong balance sheet.
Formlabs has experienced strong growth since the early stages of the
pandemic. The company has raised over $250 million and was valued at $2
billion in the latest funding round. Since inception, Formlabs has sold more
than 70,000 machines. The company’s strong gross margin is supported by
both system sales and a relatively high-margin consumables revenue
stream.
Revenues and earnings Stratasys generated revenue of $607 million in 2021, up 17% from $521
million in 2020. Product revenue (systems and consumables) increased
23% year-over-year. Revenue from the product segment represented
65% of fiscal 2021 sales. Service revenue at Stratasys increased 5% year-
over-year.
Stratasys’ adjusted gross margin expanded 20 basis points to 47.8% in

2021. Product gross margin was flat year-over-year at 56.3% but remains
roughly 500 basis points below pre-pandemic levels. Services gross margin
contracted by 200 basis points to 29.3% and is roughly 400 basis points
below 2019 segment gross margin. Adjusted operating margin improved
150 basis points but remained a negative 0.3%. Operating expenses
increased by 14% in 2021, due to the return of the five-day work week and
expenses associated with recent acquisitions. Despite increased costs,
operating expense as a percentage of sales decreased 130 basis points to
48.1%. Stratasys reported adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of -$0.07, up
$0.18 from -$0.25 in 2020.
Stratasys provided 2022 guidance, with anticipated revenue of $680‒695

million, which translates to 13% growth at the midpoint. Gross margin is
expected to be flat or up modestly compared with 2021. Operating
expenses are expected to increase $20–25 million in 2022, from about
$292 million in 2021. This reflects recent acquisition costs and organic

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
growth investments. As a result, operating margin was forecast at slightly

above 2.0% for the year and adjusted EPS are expected to be $0.14‒0.19.
Management highlighted that the company’s backlog and new product
introductions give it confidence in the outlook.
Stratasys acquired AM startup Origin in January 2021 for a purchase price

of $100 million. It also bought a small, UK-based VPP system manufacturer
called RP Support in February 2021. The company acquired the remaining
55% interest of Xaar 3D in November 2021 for $30 million. New product
introductions will include systems that use technologies obtained through
these acquisitions, (i.e., programmable photopolymerization, high
throughput VPP, and selective absorption fusion).
3D Systems reported revenue of $616 million in 2021, up 11% from $557

million in 2020. Excluding the four divestitures completed in 2021,
revenue was up 32% year-over-year. This was driven largely by 41%
growth in healthcare and 24% growth in the industrial business sector.
Adjusted gross margin for 3D Systems expanded 40 basis points to 43% in

2021. Product gross margin expanded 1,100 basis points while services
gross margin decreased 1,000 basis points. The company’s adjusted
operating margin improved 800 basis points year-over-year to 8.1%, the
highest level reported since 2016. 3D Systems reported adjusted EPS of
$0.45 in 2021, up $0.56 from -$0.11 in 2020.
3D Systems’ management provided guidance for revenue, gross margin,

and operating expenses for 2022. Revenue is expected to be $570‒630
million, up about 10% at the midpoint (adjusted for businesses divested in
2021). Gross margin is anticipated to be 40‒44%, and operating expenses
are expected to be in the range of $225‒250 million.
Based on consensus estimates, Desktop Metal’s revenue is expected to

reach $105 million in 2021, up over 500% year-over-year. This is due
primarily to the six acquisitions completed in 2021, particularly ETEC,
previously known as Envisiontec. The ETEC acquisition closed in February
2021, and ExOne closed in November 2021. Excluding about $31 million of
revenue contributions from acquisitions, nine months ended revenue
would have been $25 million, which is up roughly 210% year-over-year.
The high growth rate is in part due to growth coming off a small base and
pandemic challenges in the previous year. The company is expected to
report an earnings loss of $80‒90 million before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). This loss does not include
contributions from ExOne. 2020 results were not available prior to the
publication of this report.
Based on preliminary figures released by management, SLM Solutions is

expecting a 20% increase in revenue to €75 million in 2021. The company
is expected to report an EBITDA loss in the range of €9‒10 million.
Markforged guided 2021 revenue in the range of $88‒90 million, which is

up 24% year-over-year at the midpoint. EBITDA loss is expected to be
about $37 million.
Materialise revenue increased 21% to €205 million in 2021. The company

reported net income of €13 million and adjusted EBITDA of roughly €33
million or 15.8% of revenue. Management provided revenue and EBITDA

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
guidance for 2022. Revenue is expected to grow 10% year-over-year, and

EBITDA is expected to decline 10% year-over-year. This is driven by the
company’s increased investments in newer growth businesses.
Protolabs’ revenue increased 12% (up 4% organically) in 2021 to $488

million. Organic growth would have been closer to 10% if Protolabs had
not experienced significant pandemic-related orders in early 2020.
Analysts project revenue growth of 7% in 2022. Adjusted EPS decreased
35% in 2021 but are projected to increase 11% in 2022. 3D printing
revenue at Protolabs grew 16% in 2021 to $73 million, accounting for 15%
of total company revenue.
Velo3D generated $27 million in revenue in 2021, up 45% year-over-year.

Management forecasts 2022 revenue of $89 million, equating to 225%
growth. Gross margin in 2021 was 18.1%, down roughly 1,550 basis points
from 2020. Adjusted EBITDA loss was $47 million, compared to a $19
million loss in 2020. This was partly due to costs associated with the SPAC
merger and becoming a public company, as well as increased growth
investments. Management expects gross margin to increase sequentially
throughout the year, with 30% within reach in Q4 2022. First-quarter
gross margin will be under pressure because shipments of the new
Sapphire XC system should account for a greater proportion of sales. The
cost to manufacture the XC system is higher than originally expected, in
large part due to supply-chain challenges. As a result, gross margin is
expected to be down slightly year-over-year. The consensus estimate of
2022 gross margin is 17.8%.
Voxeljet guided 2021 revenue of €22.5‒27.5 million, up 16% year-over-

year at the midpoint. The company expects gross margin to be above
32.5%. The consensus estimate is 26% revenue growth and gross margin
of 38% for 2022.
The following table provides the consensus revenue and EPS estimates for
the companies covered in this section of the report.
2021 2022E 2023E

Revenue 2022E % 2023E %
sales1 sales2 sales
consensus Growth Growth
(millions) (millions) (millions)
3D Systems $616 $594 $656 -4% 10%
Stratasys $607 $686 $745 13% 9%
Desktop Metal $105 $253 $361 140% 43%
Protolabs $488 $523 $575 7% 10%
Materialise $227 $247 $278 9% 13%
SLM Solutions $80 $115 $148 44% 29%
Markforged $89 $120 $198 35% 65%
Velo3D $27 $88 $153 220% 75%
Voxeljet $26 $33 $45 26% 35%
2022E % 2023E %
EPS consensus 2021 EPS1 2022E EPS 2023E EPS
Growth Growth
3D Systems $0.45 $0.12 $0.29 -74% 142%
Stratasys $(0.07) $0.16 $0.40 NM 146%
Desktop Metal $(0.30) $(0.33) $(0.21) NM NM
Protolabs $1.55 $1.72 $2.15 11% 25%
Materialise $0.25 $0.12 $0.23 -52% 86%

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
2022E % 2023E %
EPS consensus 2021 EPS1 2022E EPS 2023E EPS
Growth Growth
SLM Solutions $(1.01) $(0.54) $0.11 NM NM

Markforged $(0.15) $(0.31) $(0.22) NM NM
Velo3D $(1.21) $(0.37) $(0.25) NM NM
Voxeljet $(2.09) $(0.85) $(0.91) NM NM
Source: FactSet and company reports
Footnotes:
1 2021 figures represent actual reported results for 3D Systems, Materialise, Protolabs,
Stratasys, and Velo3D and preliminary figures from SLM Solutions. Other 2021 figures are
consensus estimates.
2 All forecasted figures reflect consensus estimates.
Notes: All figures are in U.S. dollars. NM means “not meaningful.”
Two of the most common valuation metrics used by growth investors are
the price/earnings (P/E) and enterprise value/EBITDA (EV/EBITDA)
multiples. The P/E is calculated by dividing the stock price by the
consensus EPS estimates. EV/EBITDA is defined as a company’s market
capitalization plus net debt (debt minus cash) divided by earnings before
taxes, interest, depreciation, and amortization. The following tables
highlight P/E and EV/EBITDA valuations as of March 7, 2022.
EPS P/E
Company Ticker Price
CY 22E CY 23E CY 22E CY 23E
3D Systems DDD $14.46 $0.12 $0.29 123x 51x
Stratasys SSYS $22.50 $0.16 $0.40 139x 56x
Desktop Metal DM $3.54 $(0.33) $(0.21) NM NM
Protolabs PRLB $53.02 $1.72 $2.15 31x 25x
Materialise MTLS $18.43 $0.12 $0.23 151x 81x
SLM Solutions AM3D-DE $12.85 $(0.54) $0.11 NM 121x
Markforged MKFG $3.33 $(0.31) $(0.22) NM NM
Velo3D VLD $6.82 $(0.37) $(0.25) NM NM
Voxeljet VJET $4.60 $(0.85) $(0.91) NM NM
Average 111x 67x
EBITDA EV/EBITDA
3D Systems DDD $14.46 44 69 34x 22x
Stratasys SSYS $22.50 39 60 24x 16x
Desktop Metal DM $3.54 -84 -35 NM NM
Protolabs PRLB $53.02 99 116 14x 12x
Materialise MTLS $18.43 33 42 28x 22x
SLM Solutions AM3D-DE $12.85 1 17 NM 20x
Markforged MKFG $3.33 -43 -22 NM NM
Velo3D VLD $6.82 -49 -25 NM NM
Voxeljet VJET $4.60 -6 -6 NM NM
Average 25x 18x
Source: FactSet
Notes: All figures are in U.S. dollars. NM means “not meaningful.”
Several publicly traded AM companies are not yet profitable when

considering EBITDA or EPS. This is either because they are still in the early
stages of growth or have experienced operational challenges. In this

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
situation, investors will often value a company by a multiple of sales,

specifically, the enterprise value to sales ratio. The following table
provides valuation multiples on this basis of 2022 and 2023 sales
estimates.
Sales EV/Sales
3D Systems DDD $14.46 $594 $656 2.5x 2.3x
Stratasys SSYS $22.50 $686 $745 1.4x 1.3x
Desktop Metal DM $3.54 $253 $361 2.0x 1.4x
Protolabs PRLB $53.02 $523 $575 2.7x 2.4x
Materialise MTLS $18.43 $247 $278 3.8x 3.4x
SLM Solutions AM3D-DE $12.85 $115 $148 3.0x 2.4x
Markforged MKFG $3.33 $120 $198 2.7x 1.6x
Velo3D VLD $6.82 $88 $153 12.1x 6.9x
Voxeljet VJET $4.60 $33 $45 1.0x 0.8x
Average 3.5x 2.5x
Source: FactSet
Several AM stocks have received significant short interest. As of March 7,

2022, 10% of 3D Systems’ outstanding shares were sold short, meaning
that many investors are betting the stock price will decline. This compares
to 4% short interest for Stratasys, 5% for Protolabs, 14% Desktop Metal,
1% Markforged, 2% Velo3D, and 1% each for Materialise and Voxeljet.
Outlook Shares of AM companies were largely sold off at the beginning of 2022.
This is in part due to the overall market dynamics surrounding high
growth and technology companies. From January 1, 2022, through March
7, 2022, shares of 3D Systems, Stratasys, Desktop Metal, Markforged,
Velo3D, and Voxeljet were down 33%, 8%, 29%, 38%, 13%, and 22%,
respectively. Relative to all-time historical high share prices, shares are
down about 80% on average for the group. Current valuations of AM
companies imply that investors generally anticipate growth across the
industry. Increases in demand are expected for 3D printing systems,
consumables, and part-building services.
Both 3D Systems and Stratasys are investing in new technology

development and more strategic customer engagement. It will be
interesting to monitor new developments from the established players.
This includes the new PBF technology from Stratasys that began shipping
in December 2021. It also includes 3D Systems’ plan to refresh the
company’s entire hardware lineup over the next 18 months. These
companies continue to face increased competition from new industry
entrants. Markforged and Velo3D are both planning to launch their largest
printers to date in 2022.
Overall growth in the AM industry has outpaced growth reported by public

companies. This indicates that industry growth in recent years has been
driven largely by private competitors. Over the next two to three years, it is
likely that more fast-growth private companies will file for initial public
offerings.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Mergers and Healthcare applications and special-purpose acquisition companies were

prominent in the AM investment and acquisitions landscape in 2021. The
acquisitions number of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) continued to grow. Within
by Shamil Hargovan the AM industry, 62 notable M&A deals were reported from January 2021
through February 2022. Healthcare-related deals commanded the highest
valuations.
The following table lists the 62 AM-related M&A closings. For deals in
2021, the total value is estimated to be more than $1.95 billion. The figures
in the “Amount” column are millions of dollars.
Company Investor Amount

January 2021
3D Hubs Protolabs $347
February 2021
Metalúrgica y RTB P. Ferreras Group –
ETEC (Envisiontec) Desktop Metal $249
Leader Solution Tactile AURES Group –
Lattice Innovation AEM Holdings $15
March 2021
Voodoo Manufacturing 3D Tech –
One Click Metal Index Group –
3dTrust Vedalis –
Multiphoton Optics Heidelberg Instruments Mikrotechnik –
RPS Stratasys –
Rapid Mnuf Visiativ –
April 2021
DV3 Daddy Kate –
Morf3D Nikon $91
3rd Dimension Industrial 3D Printing ADDMAN Engineering –
3T Additive Manufacturing Beam IT –
AstroPrint BCN3D –
3D Tech Albixon –
Nanofabrica Nano Dimension $80
Freshmade 3D ExOne –
May 2021
Allevi 3D Systems $4
Additive Works 3D Systems –
Formetrix MacLean-Fogg –
Adaptive3D Desktop Metal –
Nanoscribe Bioc (Cellink) $37.1
Ciceri De Mondel Maip –
Cadlog Group Var Group –
Coeurdor Oerlikon $112
June 2021
Additive Orthopaedics Paragon 28 –
Tronix Agile Space Industries –
Agile Additive Agile Space Industries –
July 2021
Creabis Prodways Group –
Aerosint Desktop Metal –
Tri-D Dynamics Titomic –
Collider Tech Essentium –

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Company Investor Amount

August 2021
Voxel8 Kornit Digital –
Applied Rapid Technologies Obsidian Solutions Group –
Advanced BioMatrix BICO $15
Bonsmile Lepu Medical $38
September 2021
Oqton 3D Systems $180
Aidro Desktop Metal –
Orchestrate Orthodontic Park Dental Research –
Technologies
Allegheny Educational System Albert Neupaver and Chris Neupaver –
October 2021
Proto3000 GoEngineer –
Vertex Manufacturing PrinterPrezz –
Volumetric Biotechnologies 3D Systems –
Xaar 3D Stratasys –
Wohlers Associates ASTM International –
November 2021
Notion Systems RSBG Advanced Manufacturing Technologies –
ExOne Desktop Metal $561
Link3D Materialise $33.5
Mixed Dimensions Integral Reality Labs –
Meta Additive Desktop Metal –
Amazing Additive Manufacturing Metrix Connect –
Dycomet Europe Titomic –
December 2021
Volumetric 3D Systems $400
Flow Science Magma –
BQ Huawei Technologies Company $11
January 2022
Castheon ADDMAN Engineering –
Laser Cladding Ventures SKF –
RE3Dtech Core Industrial Partners –
February 2022
Kumovis 3D Systems –
Titan Robotics 3D Systems –
Source: STS Capital Partners and Wohlers Associates
The acquisition of Envisiontec by Desktop Metal in February 2021 is

notable because the acquirer itself is a startup company. Desktop Metal
went public in December 2020.
An acquisition or IPO can provide an early investor with a return on their

investment. This is particularly true if the acquisition is a company in the
late startup stage. Acquisitions often occur long after a company has been
founded because it can take years to develop commercial products and
services.
Venture capitalists have reported better fundamentals with AM companies

in their portfolios. This is especially true for startups applying AM
technology to mitigate supply-chain issues brought on by the pandemic.
This and other effects of the pandemic are expected to continue for some
period and offer opportunities for AM. The following graph shows the
number of M&A deals from 2012 through 2021.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Source: STS Capital Partners
It is becoming increasingly difficult to define a 3D-printing company. Many

companies are solving a problem using AM coupled with software, “deep
tech,” and business innovation. This is a generally positive indication
toward future growth in the industry.
A major hype inflection in 2012–2014 was driven by industry patents

expiring and excessive venture funding being invested. However,
companies founded from 2015 to 2020 began to yield significant returns in
2021. Some of them exited and others raised further funding rounds at
higher valuations.
Many companies benefited significantly from the past five years of AM

innovation around materials, speed, and cost. This innovation has clearly
made 3D printing more viable for series manufacturing.
Structural investments also came from not-for-profit and industry

association sectors of the 3D printing community. Wohlers Associates was
acquired by ASTM International, a leading global standards development
organization. Metrix became the stand-alone events and information arm
of the American Society for Mechanical Engineers. Several not-for-profit
organizations have identified new revenue streams through acquisitions
and spinoffs.
Corporate Corporate investment in AM reflects continuing confidence in the future

of the technology. Investments support the development and
investments commercialization of AM products and services. The following table lists
known investments in AM over the past 12 months.
Investment
Date Companies Description
(millions)
Mar 2021 3D Metalforge IPO funding to expand services in Australia and the U.S. $7.8
Additive Manufacturing Tech. Develop automated post-processing of polymer parts $3.5
Mantle Develop a high-precision metal AM system $13
ValCUN Develop a proprietary metal AM process $1.8
Fortify Develop a system and materials for composite 3D printing $20
Velo3D SPAC funding for metal AM system producer $155
Wematter Develop AM system and hire new staff $4.8

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Investment
Date Companies Description
(millions)
Apr 2021 Revo Foods Expand production of 3D-printed salmon-like alternative protein $1.8
MX3D Launch a new robotic metal AM system $2.7
3YOURMIND Expanded series A funding to develop AM process chain software $6.9
May 2021 Shapeways SPAC funding through a merger with Galileo Acquisition Corp. $195
Remedy Health Series A funding to expand product range and begin U.S. production $11
Kings 3D Expand the range of VPP systems and develop new materials $15.6
Nexa3D Globalize operations and develop new systems $55
Formlabs Funding round led by SoftBank's Vision Fund 2 $150
Jun 2021 Relativity Space Series E funding to develop the Terran R 3D-printed rocket $650
Brinter Seed funding to develop bioprinting platform $1.4
Seurat Series B funding to further develop metal PBF process $41
3DM IPO on Tel Aviv Stock Exchange $13
IoTech Develop platform to deposit layers with high-viscosity multi-materials $2.5
July 2021 Inkbit Further develop VPP system $30
Mighty Buildings Series B funding to develop a construction system $22
Continuous Composites Series A funding to commercialize composite MEX system $17
FABRIC8LABS Series A funding to commercialize multi-material metal AM process $19.3
Freemelt Commercializing electron-beam PBF system $9.2
Aug 2021 Arevo Complete manufacturing facility for composite 3D printers $25
ICON Series B funding to develop concrete MEX systems $207
Holo Series B funding to develop metal VPP systems and materials –
Sep 2021 Fortius Develop aluminum materials for AM with improved grain structures $1.4
AON3D Develop MEX system for advanced engineering thermoplastics $11.5
Evolve Commercialize electrophotographic polymer printing technology $30
AM Batteries Develop AM process to produce lithium-ion batteries $3
6K Series C funding to expand production capacity $51
Mantle Series B funding to commercialize metal-paste MEX system $25
General Lattice Develop design tools to create lattice structures for AM parts $1
Nov 2021 Conflux Technology Series A funding to expand production of 3D-printed heat exchangers $6.3
Additive Manufacturing Tech. Series B funding to develop and launch post-processing systems $15
Immensa Expand local capabilities and launch into international markets $7
LightForce Orthodontics Series C funding to scale operations $50
Foundry Lab Develop digital microwave casting technology $8
Dec 2021 Prellis Biologics Series B funding to develop tools for 3D printing organs $14.5
UnionTech Series D funding to further develop VPP systems $31.4
Incus Series A funding to develop and industrialize metal VPP process –
Jan 2022 Adaxis Develop software to turn robots into large-scale 3D printers $1.1
Redefine Meat Expand 3D-printed meat operations worldwide $135
Seurat Series B funding to further develop metal PBF process $21
Feb 2022 Healshape Develop bioprinted implants for breast reconstruction $6.8
Elementum 3D Series B funding to develop advanced alloys for metal AM $22
Nuclera Further development and commercialization of a desktop bioprinter $42.5
Guangdong Hanbang 3D Develop and commercialize PBF and hybrid metal AM systems $60
Scrona Develop a 3D printer based on an electrostatic injection process $9.6
Headmade Materials Series A funding to develop a metal PBF process $9.1
CAD solid modeling Four distinct CAD-related technologies are driving mainstream
by Randall S. Newton engineering innovations. They are digital thread, digital twin, model-
based definition (MBD), and real-time simulation. All improve AM design
and processing.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The phrase “digital thread” was coined in 2011. It is the creation of a

traceable connection between 3D CAD data and the manufacturing of the
product. Previously, the coordination between model and machine was
manual, with data being released by a person for a machine to use. A digital
thread is real-time and automated and is used increasingly for AM and CNC
machining. Some technologists refer to the “digital web” instead to
emphasize the interactive and holistic aspects of the connection.
Digital twin refers to making and maintaining a 3D CAD model as the

virtual equivalent of the final manufactured part or assembly. The digital
twin, sometimes called the virtual twin, is not simply a reflection of a
particular point in time. Instead, it is constantly updated, so the digital
version accurately reflects the physical version in all important aspects.
Implicit in this concept is the understanding that all participants in the
design and engineering process agree to work from one common database.
MBD builds on the concepts of a digital thread and digital twin. It allows
everyone in the organization to have direct access to engineering data
without interventions such as 2D drawings or manually generated bills of
materials. MBD avoids potential duplication of data by different
departments and consolidates version control. Most modern
manufacturing equipment can communicate directly with 3D CAD models,
eliminating the creation of separate versions of part or product data for
each workflow. Also, quality requirements are easier to interpret in 3D
than in 2D. Processes are streamlined by starting with the MBD of the
product. These processes include simulation, manufacturing process
development, documentation, and the development of service instructions.
In the context of CAD modeling, real-time or instantaneous simulation is

supported by the rapid exponential growth in graphics processing
capabilities. Designer simulation simplification and the increased speed of
visualization has facilitated simulation-driven designs.
Leading CAD vendors offer product lifecycle management (PLM) systems

and strive to make them more efficient and cloud-based. For example, in
2021, Autodesk acquired Upchain, and PTC acquired Arena Solutions. Both
acquired companies produced cloud-based PLM systems. The challenge
ahead for PLM technology is to keep up with the move to MBD and the
digital twin and digital thread approach.
Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to grow as a method of creating new

tools and capabilities in CAD products. For example, the sketch tool in
Siemens NX includes AI-enabled constraint guidance, turning a tedious
manual process into a semi-automated one. Algorithmic modeling, which
adds visual programming nodes to initial designs, is another way AI is
improving CAD.
Shapr3D, a new iPad-based 3D CAD software product from Hungary, was

released in 2021 and is growing rapidly. The app offers a unique value
proposition with the quick, precise sketching of solid models using a pen-
based interface. Since the initial iPad introduction, the company has
released versions for M1-based Apple computers and Windows systems.
CAD vendors do not report seat counts with their quarterly revenue
reports. For this reason, unit sales growth is estimated based on revenue
statements. Estimates for the four largest CAD companies are shown in the
following table. These figures include worldwide sales revenue, net

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
income, and the estimated number of commercial CAD seats sold in 2021.
They also include the estimated cumulative total number of CAD seats sold
through the end of 2021.
2021 2021 net 2021 Cumulative

Company revenue income commercial commercial
(millions)1 (millions)1 seats (000s)2 seats (000s)2
Autodesk $4,390 $1,208.2 Inventor: 40 822
Dassault Systèmes $5,446.5 $867.2 CATIA: 97 1,188
SolidWorks: 129 1,273
PTC $1,807.2 $634.4 Creo: 27 610
Siemens PLM Software – – NX: 51 787
Solid Edge: 49 473
Total – – 393 5,153
Source: Consilia Vektor and Wohlers Associates
Footnotes:
1 Revenue and net income reported is for the entire company and not exclusively for solid
modeling products and services. CAD is such a small portion of Siemens total revenue
that it is not reported separately.
2 Educational seats―sold or given away―are not included.
3 The table excludes Alibre Design, Cobalt, IronCAD, KeyCreator, Onshape, SpaceClaim,
and other CAD software products. Also, these totals exclude other 3D products capable
of generating 3D models for AM including Autodesk Alias Studio, Rhino, and others.
The following graph shows commercial CAD software installations (in

thousands) over the past 19 years. After a low point in 2009, sales have
risen consistently, except for a slight decline in 2013. In 2021, sales were
an estimated 393,000 seats, an increase of 12.3%. Growth was 8.4% in
2020 and 5.9% in 2019.
Source: Consilia Vektor and Wohlers Associates

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Part 4: Final Part Production
Part 4: Final Part Production

Additive manufacturing (AM) continues to progress toward becoming a
mainstream option for series production applications. It eliminates the
need for costly tooling, such as molds and dies, and can produce highly
complex products. The production of final parts using AM supports small
batch production, custom parts, lightweight structures, complex internal
features, and part consolidation.
AM continues to penetrate an increasing number of markets. It is too early

to predict whether AM will lead to a new industrial revolution, but some
indicators suggest that it might. AM can remove barriers to entering the
product development and manufacturing business. It eliminates tooling
costs, reduces risk, and simplifies supply chains.
Companies, continue to increase their use of AM for parts that go into final
products. Wohlers Associates asked companies “What percentage of this
segment of your business grew in 2021?” A total of 117 service providers
and 114 manufacturers of industrial AM systems responded to the
question. The responses were averaged and included in the following.

2008 19.9% 2015 20.6%
2009 22.8% 2016 18.0%
2010 14.2% 2017 32.4%
2011 22.4% 2018 29.2%
2012 17.9% 2019 22.5%
2013 22.6% 2020 23.9%
2014 22.7% 2021 19.5%
The same information was used to calculate the amount of money spent
annually on final part production worldwide. This is shown in the
following graph. The values are in thousands of dollars. An estimated $2.21
billion was spent on AM parts for end-use products in 2021, up 22.8%
from the year before. This represents revenue produced by service
providers worldwide. It excludes the value of end-use parts made by
manufacturing companies that are not service providers.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Metal AM is having an interesting impact on the production of some types

of products. The parts often offer similar or better material properties than
those made with conventional processes, such as casting. Metal AM can
reduce the use of material, waste, and a part’s weight. It is often ideal for
high-value, low-volume production of complex parts across several
sectors, including aerospace, medical, dental, energy, and motorsports.
Applications of final part production with AM include some consumer

products, such as jewelry, art, lighting, eyewear, footwear, and personal
accessories. Many 3D-printed products are available online at digital
marketplaces such as Shapeways and Etsy.
Benefits of AM AM becomes a candidate for final part production when it adds value
compared to parts made by conventional manufacturing processes.
for production Manufacturers are willing to consider a new production process when it
is significantly less expensive and/or improves value and product
performance. AM can help accomplish this by affecting key aspects of
product development and manufacturing, including:
▪ Elimination of tooling
▪ Digital inventories and on-demand manufacturing
▪ Reducing lead times, part numbers, and labor
▪ Lightweight parts
▪ Optimized structures
▪ Biomimicry
▪ Part consolidation, partly to reduce or eliminate assembly
▪ Reduction in waste
▪ Custom and limited-edition products
▪ Design changes after production has begun
▪ Same process and material for prototyping and production
Reduction of tooling Unlike plastic injection molding and metal casting, AM does not require
tooling to produce a part. This can reduce cost, lead time, and a product’s
time to market. Production delays due to damaged or worn tools are also
eliminated, along with tool maintenance, repair, storage, and scrap. AM
systems have maintenance costs and downtime similar to conventional
machines for manufacturing. However, issues associated with tooling do
not apply to AM.
The following product is a vape-free, smoke-free, and nicotine-free pipe. It

is a highly engineered product, designed to support healthy habits and
improve breathing. Using it drives a turbine mechanism inside the pipe,
powering a corresponding turbine in a separate compartment that draws
the aromas through to the user’s nose. No batteries or heating coils are
required with the product. It is made by AM, eliminating the need for
tooling.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
CalmPipe produced using polymer powder bed fusion,

courtesy of Fi Additive and CalmPipe
Reduced lead time Having the option of quickly changing a product’s design on short notice
and on-demand is another benefit of using AM. Every part being built on an AM machine
can be different, so parts can be made to order. Manufacturers can react
manufacturing more quickly to changing market conditions, and production rates can
vary to match demand.
Control and careful metering of production volumes can result in just-in-

time manufacturing. As AM supply chain integration matures, the
production workflow will become better understood. In practice, however,
delays associated with AM still can occur. Delays may include data
preparation, time required for cooling, part finishing, and other forms of
post-processing.
Even with these constraints, using AM can result in an impressive

reduction in lead-time and on-demand, on-location manufacturing. A
recent example is producing personal protective equipment (PPE). During
the early stages of the pandemic, PPE production and distribution became
a serious problem in many countries. Organizations around the world
solved this problem by 3D printing PPE, such as face shields, often using
low-cost 3D printers.
Face shields made on demand by 3D printing,

courtesy of Turaki Healthcare and ShieldsUp
Using AM for on-demand production is perhaps best seen with spare parts.
When mechanical assemblies are made up of thousands of unique parts,
fabricating, tracking, and storing spare parts is costly. This is especially
true if only a few spare parts are deployed during the life of the assembly.
Transporting spare parts to and from a storage warehouse can become a

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
bottleneck. Printing a spare part as needed from a digital inventory

eliminates storage. In many instances, digital files can be transmitted to
and printed at the point of service, eliminating the transportation
bottleneck.
The following is a spare part made on demand using AM. It replaced a

broken part for a diaphragm pump at the University of Auckland’s
chemistry department.
Spare part assembly 3D printed in maraging steel (left) for

a diaphragm pump shuttle arm, disassembled AM
parts (center), and original broken part (right),
courtesy of Olaf Diegel
Reduced inventory and Just-in-time operations result in fewer parts held in inventory. AM reduces
part consolidation inventory by consolidating many parts into one and by on-demand
manufacturing. This reduces the need for on-site storage and off-site
warehousing. By reducing inventory, companies free up capital, providing
more flexibility to develop new products or invest in other businesses.
Reducing the number of parts in an assembly immediately reduces the

overhead cost and time associated with documentation, inspection, and
production planning and control. Also, reduced part count results in
reduction of time and labor to assemble the product. The “footprint” of an
assembly line becomes smaller, further cutting costs.
When GE Aviation analyzed its CT7 helicopter engine, it determined about

40% of the engine could be made using AM. A subsequent redesign
spanning 18 months consolidated 900 parts into 16. For those parts,
weight was reduced by 35% and cost by 30–40%.
The combustion chamber for the CT7 engine contains thousands of holes
and normally would have been produced by assembling up to 50 parts.
Redesign and testing typically required one year, and five or six engineers
were dedicated to this effort. Using AM, one engineer designed and tested a
combustion chamber as a single part in less than six months. The new
design is 30% lighter than the conventional part.
A 3D-printed turbopump at National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Marshall Space Flight Center required 45% fewer
parts than its conventionally manufactured counterpart.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Turbopump made by AM with 45% fewer parts, courtesy

of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Sustainability and Parts designed for AM can be more environmentally friendly to produce
waste reduction by reducing material waste or employing sustainable feedstock.
Sustainable materials typically require less energy to produce and have a
smaller carbon footprint. They include wood, stone, and other natural
materials.
Fuel consumption for parts in service can be reduced using lightweight AM

parts. The body of the electric guitar shown in the following image was 3D
printed from wood scrap. The binder jetting (BJT) process and sawdust
(as feedstock) were used to produce it. The part was infiltrated with a
lignin-based bioepoxy.
Electric guitar printed from wood waste byproduct,

courtesy of Olaf Diegel and Forust
Custom product Products are not always “one size fits all.” Rather than using adapters or
manufacturing manually customizing products, AM can be used to produce custom
products digitally. The following silver ring was custom designed using an
online interface by the customer and produced using AM by The Future of
Jewelry.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Custom 3D-printed silver ring, courtesy of The Future of Jewelry
Mass customization provides consumer benefits by tailoring each part to

satisfy specific customer interests and needs. This applies to orthotics,
medical implants, handles and grips, nameplates, and many other
products. The following image shows a custom prosthetic arm for Sharon
‘Shaz’ Dagg, a performance kayaker. It was manufactured using powder
bed fusion (PBF) from 3D Systems and HP.
Custom prosthetic arm for kayaking, courtesy of Alex

Huffadene and New Zealand Artificial Limb Service
Generative design New technologies are appearing for AM, and as they do, new design
and biomimicry methods evolve to take advantage of these developments. The design
freedom of AM also creates an opportunity for advanced designs not
practical in conventional manufacturing. New design tools are needed to
“unlock” these opportunities.
Generative design is an interesting new method for product development.

The approach uses a set of computer algorithms that automatically
generate many 3D solid model variations based on specific inputs such as
material type and the load required of the part. The result may be
hundreds or thousands of versions of a proposed design.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Generatively designed bench, courtesy of

Aristo Cast and Autodesk
Biomimicry is the design of structures modeled after those found in nature.

It imitates elements of nature that have evolved over thousands of years,
creating strong and lightweight geometric shapes and features. As more is
learned about mimicking designs of nature, new computational methods
and design tools will develop to replicate these features. The AM industry
has barely scratched the surface of what is possible surrounding
biomimicry.
The chair in the following image resulted from an exploration into organic
structures to optimize soft seating. The design was inspired by plant cell
structures. The result is a soft chair that adapts to a person and is
manufactured using a single material.
Chair inspired by biomimicry, courtesy of Lilian van Daal
Optimized structures AM empowers engineers and designers to optimize strength, stiffness,

weight, manufacturability, and other parameters. Software tools are
available to supplement traditional CAD in this process. These tools
include topology optimization (TO), finite element analysis (FEA), and
scripting-based design software.
Radic Performance is a New Zealand company that manufactures high-

performance mountain bike accessories and is using AM to create
lightweight brake calipers. The parts are produced in aluminum using
metal PBF. TO was used to design the parts, resulting in weight reduction
of 45% compared to conventionally machined calipers.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Optimized brake calipers for mountain bikes,

courtesy of Radic Performance
Using simulation software, it is possible to optimize structures for printing,

weight, fluid flow, managing heat flow and cooling, and other properties.
The following injection-molding tool for bottle caps integrates many of
these features to produce a mold that outperforms traditional tools in its
class. The tool reduced part cooling time from 4.5 seconds to 1.7 seconds.
Injection-molding tool for bottle caps produced using AM,

courtesy of Simon Chan and CAMEX
Design for additive Design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) focuses on techniques used to
maximize the value of AM for production applications. As Nyle Miyamoto
manufacturing of Boeing said, “DfAM opens the design space enabled by AM.” AM brings
both benefits and challenges to designers. Parts can be made with greater
complexity using fewer processes. Process requirements, however, are
very different from traditional manufacturing.
AM removes many conventional manufacturing constraints, but it imposes

new ones of its own. Thus, designers must change their approach to use
AM effectively. For conventional manufacturing, detailed consideration is
given to manufacturing process requirements such as geometric
simplification, parting lines, draft angles, and wall thicknesses. Most
designers have been educated and trained with this view, often making it
difficult to adjust their thinking when designing for AM.
One of the difficulties with AM is that most design guidelines depend on

several parameters. For example, a minimum allowable slot thickness for
polymer PBF depends on the thickness and orientation of the slot. As the

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
slot depth increases, the slot must become wider to avoid powder partially
or fully sintering in the slot, as shown in the following image. Information
like this is critical to producing quality parts, yet it is often difficult to find,
and few have documented and published it. These guidelines also cannot
be viewed as strict rules that apply to every situation, machine, and
material.
DfAM guideline showing minimum slot width

and depth, courtesy of Olaf Diegel
The build orientation affects the location of layers and associated

weakness, surface quality, and support requirements. DfAM techniques can
minimize these effects in many ways, but each requires education, practice,
and experimentation.
Each AM process has unique aspects and requires specific design

guidelines. However, several overarching design considerations apply to
most AM technologies, including the following.
▪ Determine if AM is a good fit. As a rule, for production parts, designers

should consider manufacturability and production quantity. If a part can
be made using a 3-axis computer numerical control (CNC) machine, it
may not be commercially advantageous to use AM.
▪ Minimize material usage. This is one of the single most important DfAM
guidelines. Any material that does not serve a real engineering function
should be removed. Excess material increases feedstock cost and build
time, can cause residual stress, and usually adds little engineering value.
Many other DfAM techniques spring from this overarching guideline,
such as topology optimization, lattice structures, and support material.
▪ Always design with build orientation in mind. This is one of the key
factors that determine the orientation of anisotropy, surface finish,
location, and amount of required support material.
▪ Design to avoid support material, which is required by most AM
processes. Particularly for metal PBF processes, support material
anchors the part to the build plate and can be challenging, time
consuming, and costly to remove.
▪ Consider aesthetics and geometric complexity. With AM, the cost
increment to make a part visually appealing and highly functional is
small. Consider adding useful details, logos, part numbers, assembly
instructions, machining mounts, and grips to the parts because the
production cost is often negligible.
▪ Fillet edges wherever possible. Sharp internal corners can cause stress
concentrations and may weaken the part. Sharp external corners are less
comfortable to hold, and they use more material.
Lightweighting and With conventional manufacturing, material is often kept in a design to help
topology optimization with manufacturing. Examples include aiding the flow of molten material
throughout a mold, using shapes that are easier to machine, and features

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
that ease assembly. The geometric freedom offered by AM makes it easier

to design parts to the same functional specifications as conventional parts
with less material.
Removing unneeded material can be a main driver of DfAM. This additional

material can increase print time, feedstock cost, residual stress, and
support material. It often adds little engineering value and, in some cases,
decreases part functionality. This principle applies equally to both metal-
and polymer-based AM parts.
Lightweighting may involve a reduction of material in a single feature of a

low-stress region of a part. Also, it can involve TO of an entire part. The
robotic end-effector shown in the following image was designed using TO.
Its weight was reduced by 62% compared to its conventional design.
Topology-optimized bracket (left) and original (right),

courtesy of Angelo D’Angelo
TO is a mathematical approach to determining material location within a

part to optimize performance. Often, the focus is the strength-to-weight
ratio or the stiffness-to-weight ratio. The result is the least amount of
material to bear expected loads or to exhibit a given stiffness. TO uses FEA
at its core to make design decisions. The process usually begins with a part
design space. The designer then adds expected forces and moments to the
part model, while functional and geometric constraints remain. FEA
algorithms are used to determine the state of stress in the part and remove
material from low-stress regions to arrive at a lightweight conceptual
design.
Original design (left) and topology-optimized

design (right), courtesy of nTopology
Complex lattice Lightweight parts may be produced by adding lattice, mesh, and cellular
structures structures. This involves filling sections of a part with a structure that is
lighter than solid material. The external form of a part is often retained for
functional, ergonomic, or aesthetic reasons. The U.S. Air Force Institute of
Technology used AM to reduce the weight of a satellite “bus” by 50%. See

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
the following image. A bus is a structural framework used to attach the

payload (e.g., antenna, batteries, and solar panels). Using AM, the structure
is 20% stiffer and the part count was reduced from nearly 150 parts to 25.
Lightweight satellite bus, courtesy of the U.S. Air

Force Institute of Technology and nTopology
The strength-to-weight ratio of AM lattice structures can be optimized.

Depending on how the load is transmitted through the part, some regions
require more material than others. This can be achieved by varying the
thickness and length of the struts within the lattice. A strut is a single
member or element of a lattice structure.
Lattice structures should be designed to remove support material from

around the struts. An ideal design is one that requires no additional
support material. A lattice structure, in some cases, may function as
support material.
A new kind of lattice software tool has made it relatively easy to design
printable triply-periodic-minimal-surface (TPMS) structures such as
gyroids. These complex mathematical structures are useful because they
are self-supporting and printable without the need for support material.
They also have a large surface area, making them suitable for heat-transfer
applications such as heat exchangers.
High-efficiency aluminum heat exchanger with complex gyroid

lattice structure, courtesy of Olaf Diegel

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Trabecular structures are porous elements found in bone and typically

have porosity in the 50–90% range. Using lattice structures, AM can
produce parts with functionality that closely mimics organic trabecular
structures. These parts may be implanted into the body and create a
functional and structural connection between living bone and the implant.
A porous structure supports bone growth into a part. It is impossible to
manufacture these parts using conventional methods due to their
complexity.
3D-printed cervical fusion device with trabecular

structure, courtesy of Zimmer Biomet
Support material Metal PBF and other processes require support material, which is an
and post-process important design consideration. The goal is to use as little support
material as possible while securing the part to prevent unwanted
optimization distortion from heat during the build. A survey in connection with this
report shows that pre- and post-processing of AM parts represent about
38% of the total cost of a part. A significant part of post-processing can be
the time and effort to remove support material.
Any surface where support material is attached will have a much rougher
surface finish than faces without support material. Because of this, one of
the first considerations of DfAM is part orientation. This will impact the
location and amount of support material required.
The following example shows the need for support material on a basic
manifold. Normally, a manifold is made by drilling holes into a block of
material. Some of the holes must be plugged to form a network of
interconnected pipes. The following image shows a basic manifold design
with a plugged hole in purple.
Block manifold with one hole plugged in purple

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
With AM, most of the material can be removed to make a manifold lighter
and reduce build time and costs. However, if the design is simply shelled to
remove material without DfAM, the new design may require substantial
support material. The following image shows the required support
material in blue with two different build orientations.
Shelled manifold requires substantial support material (blue)

in two different build orientations
Support material is required to anchor the part to the build plate and
secure overhanging features. With support material, features of the design
would warp and distort due to heat. The following are guidelines for
determining whether support material is required and how much is
needed:
▪ Maximum unsupported angle: A surface with a certain angle from

vertical, commonly more than 45°, requires support material.
▪ Maximum unsupported surface area: Any overhang with a surface area
greater than an allowable maximum requires support. This amount
varies by AM process and material.
Effect of overhanging surface area, indicated

in mm of overhang length, without support
material, courtesy of Eric Utley

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
▪ Amount of residual stress: If a part contains significant residual stress, it

will require support material to prevent distortion. Post-processing heat
treatment is required to reduce this residual stress prior to part
separation from the build plate. With metal PBF, support structures
serve as heat sinks to transfer heat from active print zones, which
reduces residual stress. When thermal stresses are too great for the
support material, a build failure can occur. Parts can distort to the point
of colliding with the powder spreading mechanism.
Residual stress causing features of a part to separate

from its supports, courtesy of Renishaw
▪ Amount of mechanical force imparted by the powder spreading

mechanism or print head: Some systems have powder spreading
mechanisms or print heads that impart considerable lateral force on the
parts being printed. Support structures can resist this force.
The support-removal step may be eliminated if features of the part serve

the support function. The design feature could be solid, a lattice, or
perforated, as shown in the following image. Another method is to change
the angle of features to avoid the minimum angle that requires support
material.
Permanent walls replace what would

otherwise be support material
The following images show six different designs printed in titanium from a
DfAM course conducted in Bloemfontein, South Africa by Wohlers
Associates. Each design satisfies the requirement of not moving the
location of the manifold ports, yet no design is identical. Each uses
methods of DfAM to nearly eliminate the need for support material.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Different versions of 3D-printed titanium manifolds with minimal support material
Consolidating parts Part consolidation consists of transforming a product that is made up of

many relatively simple parts into one more complex part. The following
guidelines represent a thought process that can help designers decide
whether it is possible to apply the concept.
Design for function: Consider all parts that perform a useful function in the
product. Focus on the task the product will perform. This can reveal
unneeded parts that are easily consolidated. Optimize the design, first for
its function, rather than the processes used to make it.
As a starting point, consider how each part would be oriented on its own to
minimize layering and/or microstructural anisotropy. This thinking often
leads to good options for part consolidation. Once consolidated, parts still
need to properly function.
Eliminate tight tolerances wherever possible: Tight tolerances can be costly

and are often avoidable. If two mating parts are combined into one, the
mating surfaces vanish. This often removes the weakest areas of
assemblies where they are prone to cracking and leaking.
Consolidate parts that are used to mount or encase other parts: If two parts
are made of the same material and do not move relative to one another,
consolidate them. If they are made from different materials, consider the
following:
▪ Are they made from different materials only for historical reasons? If so,
consider a single material. This could save material cost and processing
time.
▪ Are they different because of mechanical properties? If so, can the part
made of the stronger, more expensive material be made of the weaker,
less expensive material? Parts can be strengthened with ribs or hollow
sections.
▪ Are they different because of thermal or chemical properties? If so, can
the part made from the less resistant material be made from the more
resistant material?
▪ If the more expensive material must be used, would fewer parts justify
the cost of this material?
If more than one-third of the parts are fasteners, then the number of parts
and assembly logic should be questioned. The following is an example of
how part consolidation can eliminate many fasteners.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Assembly containing 48 fasteners and five parts (right) and a consolidated

single-part version (left), which eliminates risk of leaks between the seals
Some AM processes can be used to produce an assembly with

independently moving parts. A classic example is building a ball within a
ball. Design and knowledge of tolerances have improved for production
parts with this approach. By consolidating moving parts digitally, assembly
time and total part count decline. The product shown in the following
image is a lockable 3D-printed guitar wall hanger with three degrees of
freedom and is printed as a single moving part.
3D-printed guitar wall hanger with three degrees of freedom

without the need for assembly, courtesy of Olaf Diegel
Improved fluid flow, The flow efficiency of gases and liquids around or inside a product is
highly dependent on part shape. In some instances, flow properties are
conformal cooling,
designed around manufacturing requirements and flow efficiency suffers
and efficiency as a result. Using the design freedom of AM, it is often possible to get
much closer to the optimal shape for fluid dynamics. Examples of this are
guide vanes in pumps, conformal cooling passages inside turbine blades,
and pin-fin arrays in heat exchangers.
This approach has broad implications across many industrial sectors,

including transportation, food and beverage, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil
and gas, and power generation.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Cooling channels are used in a range of manufacturing applications, such

as plastic injection molding. Part cooling is important in injection molding,
but it can consume 50–80% of the molding cycle time. By adding
conformal cooling channels to injection-molding tools, efficiency, part
quality, and tool life can improve.
Example of conformal cooling channel strategies
With conventional tooling, cooling channels are made by drilling straight

holes into the tool. Conformal cooling involves curved channels that allow
coolant to travel to difficult-to-reach regions of a tool, resulting in
improved cooling efficiency and productivity. The approach can reduce
cycle time by 20–40%, or more, depending on the shape and features of
the part being molded. When plastic cools evenly, internal stress is
minimized. The part quality improves with less warping and fewer sink
marks.
Heat distribution comparison between a conventional mold (left) and

conformal cooling channels (right), courtesy of Milacron
Economic benefits A simple conversion of conventional manufacturing to AM without

of DfAM designing for AM misses a big opportunity. It does not take advantage of the
unique design freedom AM provides. For example, a production part
designed for 3-axis CNC will generally be more expensive to produce by AM.
It could be cost-competitive if the part was redesigned to eliminate
unneeded material. Also, metal AM parts often require some post-

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
machining to meet surface quality and engineering tolerances. However,

with DfAM, this and other AM-specific costs can be offset by design and
performance improvements unique to AM.
Several approaches to design are possible with AM that would otherwise

be difficult and/or expensive to achieve with conventional manufacturing.
For example, increased geometric complexity does not automatically result
in increased production cost, as it would with conventional manufacturing.
In fact, the removal of unnecessary material can greatly decrease the cost
of AM parts. This encourages the use of organic features, lattice structures,
TO, and surface features and textures.
Organic features for reef reconstruction,

courtesy of the University of Hong Kong
The most compelling reason for implementing DfAM is simple economics.

The arguments made in the following paragraphs apply equally to most
AM processes, but are particularly compelling for metal AM. Consequently,
metal AM is used in the examples.
A simple way to gain an understanding of one of the main driving

economic factors of AM is to consider the relationship between part size
and volume. Part size and mass of material can play a critical role in the
cost of AM parts. A doubling in size can represent an exponential increase
in price. A simple cube that measures 1 x 1 x 1 cm (0.4 x 0.4 x 0.4 in) in
size, for example, represents a volume of 1 cm3 (0.06 in3). If the size of the
cube is doubled to 2 x 2 x 2 cm (0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 in), the volume is 8 cm3 (0.5
in3), an eightfold increase in volume. This indicates that doubling the size
of a part can have an eightfold increase in material, as well as in machine
time. The results can increase cost by eight times.
The same principle applies to the mass of material used in a part to an even
greater extent. The less material mass, the better, as any unnecessary
material can represent a substantial increase in print time and cost.
Let’s consider the previous example of a larger 8 cm3 (0.5 in3) cube. If it is
hollowed to a wall thickness of 0.44 mm (0.02 in), the dimensions will
double the 1 cm3 (0.06 in3) cube. However, the volume of material would
be only 1 cm3 (0.06 in3), which is the same as the solid 1 cm3 (0.06 in3)
cube. This does not mean the larger shelled cube would cost the same as
the solid smaller cube. Its increased height means more layers and added
recoating time and machine cost. The cost would still be substantially
lower than that of the solid 2 cm (0.8 in) cube.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Material volume change of a cube with doubling

its size compared to a shelled cube
With good DfAM practices, a part’s mass can be reduced by 30–90% of its
solid mass. This results in greatly reduced part cost while increasing
functionality and decreasing shipping costs. These techniques are further
explained in the following sections.
Calculating part cost and 3D printing can be expensive for parts that have not been designed for AM.
The reasons for this are straightforward. Industrial AM systems are
factors impacting it
expensive and part production speed is relatively slow. A metal AM system
can cost more than $1 million. The total investment can exceed this
amount when adding support equipment, such as heat treatment furnaces,
wire electrical discharge machining (EDM), and CNC machining.
A metal AM machine can run up to about 80% of the time, which is around
7,000 hours per year. A common return on investment (ROI) period used
by industry to recoup the cost of capital equipment is about two years.
This, of course, varies from company to company.
The following table shows estimated hourly operating costs of a metal AM

machine. Depending on the price of the machine and ROI period, it can be
in the range of $37–90 per hour. For the examples in this section, assume a
mid-range machine with an operating cost of $65 per hour.
Machine purchase price Hourly machine running cost

$500,000 $37.45
$650,000 $48.69
$1,000,000 $74.91
$1,200,000 $89.89
Equation used to calculate costs in this table: machine hourly
running costs = (machine purchase price + interest) / (payback
period x percentage running time x annual hours)
According to this cost model, a single part that takes 10 hours to build
would incur a machine operation cost of $650. However, metal AM build
times are often substantially more than this. It is not uncommon for build
times to require 40, 60, or even 100 or more hours. If a part takes 100

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
hours to print, the machine cost is $6,500. This highlights the importance
of finding methods to reduce the build time whenever possible. Note that
whenever possible, multiple parts are built simultaneously to reduce the
cost per part. To gain the most from a system, companies will fully pack the
build chamber before starting a new job.
Operational costs for metal AM systems are high. Industrial CNC and
injection-molding machines can be comparable in price and have similar
hourly operating costs. A typical part with few complex features can be
CNC machined or injection molded in a fraction of the time it takes to 3D
print the part.
Aside from hourly operating costs, material use is a factor in determining

part cost. Aluminum and steel powders for AM are typically in the range of
$78–98 per kg ($35–45 per lb). Other alloys for AM, such as cobalt-chrome
and titanium, can be $300–360 per kg ($136–164 per lb) for PBF. These
costs are about 10 times higher than billet material used for machining.
Metal AM typically results in less waste, compared to CNC machining, but

AM parts require sacrificial support material. The supports are required
for overhangs and to anchor the part to the build platform. The material
waste is typically about 10%, including both support material and partially
sintered powder that cannot be reused. This compares to 70–90% for CNC
machining, although it depends on the shape and features of a part.
Pre- and post-processing costs can be substantial. Some companies

estimate that pre- and post-processing may represent more than 40% of
the total production cost of a metal AM part. A part that takes 100 hours to
produce could rise from $6,500 to more than $9,000 to complete. This
confirms the importance of designing a part that reduces both build and
post-processing time.
Some factors in the production of metal PBF parts, such as layer recoating
time, are not impacted by part design. Recoating is the time it takes for an
AM system to spread a layer of powder before the laser or electron beam
can continue the melting process. Typical recoating time is in the range of
4–15 seconds per layer, depending on the specific machine configuration.
Suppose a part is 100 mm (3.9 in) in height and the layer thickness is
50 µm (0.002 in). The part would consist of 2,000 layers, and the total
recoating time would be 16,000 seconds (4.5 hours) if the recoating time is
eight seconds per layer. Using an average machine hourly cost of $65 per
hour, the total cost of recoating time, alone, is about $290. The only way to
lower this cost is to reduce the build height if the layer thickness is
constant.
Similar to recoating time, a machine’s “purge” time is not affected by part

design. This is the time to remove the oxygen from the build chamber.
Metal AM machines typically produce parts in an inert atmosphere, usually
using argon, nitrogen, or a vacuum. The purge can take about 30–120
minutes, depending on the type of system. Some machines also preheat the
build chamber and/or build plate, which takes time. The recoating and
purging times affect build time and cost, but they are not largely
dependent on the part design.
The following table shows the main steps involved in metal AM, and the
steps for which the total build time is affected by the design of a part.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AM process step Affected by design

Pre-processing and printing
Clean the AM system no
Purge the system of oxygen no
Preheat the AM system no
Printing
Spread layers of powder (recoating time) no
Print contour lines yes
Print interior hatch patterns yes
Post-processing
Remove build platform from machine no
Recycle powder no
Thermal stress relief yes
Remove parts from build plate no
Hot isostatic pressing no
Remove support structures yes
Heat treatment yes
Shot peening, surface machining, etc. no
Inspection no
Several design factors reduce build time. The amount of powder that needs
to be melted is the primary factor that impacts the time and cost of metal
PBF. It can be affected through design practices. The operational principle
of most metal AM systems is to melt the material in a serial fashion. The
laser or electron beam scans across each layer to fuse the powder. The
scanning path is referred to as contour lines on the part surface and
hatching patterns on the part interior. The process is analogous to filling a
solid circle with a pencil. First, the outer edge of the circle is drawn. The
pencil is then moved back and forth many times to fill in the circle. The
larger the surface area, the longer it takes to create each layer of a part.
Suppose a hydraulic manifold was designed for conventional CNC

machining. It may consist of a metal block into which many connecting
holes are drilled to form interconnecting channels. These channels allow
fluid to flow to the ports with valves and pressure sensors attached. The
only way to machine internal connecting channels inside the block is to
drill holes from the outside of the block. The holes would then need to be
plugged so that only the internal channels remain. If such a manifold was
produced using AM, a layer would look similar to a filled square with a few
holes in it. This is shown at the right in the following image.
Manifold designed for milling (left) and AM

laser scan lines for a layer (right)
The crosshatch scanning pattern for the layers in this part requires a long
scanning distance. If the manifold cross section measures 100 x 100 mm
(3.9 x 3.9 in), and the hatch spacing is set to 0.1 mm (0.004 in), each square
would require nearly 100 m (329 ft) of scanning. The beam must travel
this distance to create one layer. To relate this to part cost, if the beam
travels at 330 mm per second (13 in per second), it would take 300
seconds (five minutes) to solidify one layer of the part. In machine time, it

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
would cost $5.41 for each of the 2,000 layers—a total of $10,820—which is
an unwarranted cost. This part would also contain tremendous residual
stress due to the thick sections.
In contrast, if the bulk of the material is removed from the same part by
shelling it to a specified wall thickness, the total scanning distance is
greatly reduced, resulting in a much faster print time. If the shell thickness
is set to 2 mm (0.079 in), and the same hatch spacing parameters are used
as before, the total scan distance is about 4.5 m (14.8 ft)—a scan reduction
of more than 95%. If the beam travels at 330 mm per second (13 in per
second), it will take 13.6 seconds to hatch a part layer, which translates to
$0.24 in machine running cost per layer, which is a total machine cost of
$487 for the 2,000 layers.
Manifold hollowed to reduce material consumption and machine

time (left) and AM laser scan lines for a layer (right)
When the shelled part is finished, the internal cavities are filled with
unmelted powder, which can remain if weight is not an issue. If weight is a
concern, openings can be added to provide access to remove the powder.
Typically, the interior of the part would be filled with support material or
lattice structures.
It is helpful to minimize large volumes of solid material when designing for

AM. As with a consistent wall thickness for injection molding, large masses
of material usually offer little engineering value. They are likely to cause a
part to warp and can induce residual stress. Also, they can greatly extend
build times. Design techniques are available for eliminating large masses of
material, including the shelling method just described. Another strategy is
to fill solid regions with a honeycomb or lattice structure.
Avoiding large masses of material can also reduce the amount of thermal
stress relief required. If a part has no large masses of material and a mostly
regular wall thickness, it will contain less residual stress. Thus, heat-
treatment time can be reduced.
From a build-time perspective, it is best to produce a part in an orientation

in which build height is at its lowest. This will result in the fewest number
of layers and quickest build time. Build orientation also plays a role in the
mechanical properties of a part, dimensional accuracy, surface finish, and
required support material.
The following shows three versions of the block manifold. They include
ones that are: 1) conventionally machined and drilled, 2) adapted for AM,
but with substantial support structures and excess material, and 3) fully
optimized for AM. The third version can be built with minimal support
material, as shown.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Manifold for conventional manufacturing (left), adapted for

AM (center), and designed for AM (right)
The following table shows the time and estimated cost of the three designs.
It would be impractical to produce the solid block design using AM for
many reasons.
Solid block Shelled block Fully optimized

manifold manifold manifold
Build time 191h 1m 33s 36h 31m 21s 19h 40m 39s
Service provider quote in
$15,294 $3,735 $1,986
316L stainless steel
This example illustrates the impact that machine cost has on AM part
production. It is the most significant cost factor when using AM. It is
possible to reduce time and cost significantly by avoiding large masses of
material wherever possible. This shows that even a simple strategy of
replacing large masses of material with an even wall thickness can have a
substantial impact.
Further optimization by DfAM yields increased part cost reduction. As with

any form of manufacturing, AM production parts are only as good as the
thought and testing put into the design. For companies that do not invest
sufficiently in DfAM, the implications of cost and time can compound
quickly.
Software AM is a digitally driven technology. Digital models are created using CAD,
3D scanning, or another type of software tool. Software is critical in AM.
It creates new design possibilities and enhances performance for a given
workflow and application. Software is fundamental to design for AM and
is key to creating organic designs and unusually complex structures.
The following diagram identifies areas in the process chain where software
tools impact AM. The long boxes at the bottom represent software used
throughout the workflow. The dotted box and arrows represent steps that
may not be required in every instance. For example, process simulation
software is often used only for metal parts. Print management and quality
control apply to all workflows and can range from a simple visual
inspection to sophisticated metrology equipment and software.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AM software workflow
The following tables, while far from exhaustive, provide examples of the
types of software products used to drive AM for final part production.
Some products are multi-functional and are included in more than one
table.
3D scan-processing Some AM workflows use 3D scanning for final part inspection as one
By Michael Raphael aspect of quality control. Other workflows begin with redesigning an
existing product for which no CAD model exists. In these cases, reverse
engineering is used to capture the shape and geometric features of a
physical part. This is then imported into a CAD system for further
modification.
The following table lists both 3D scan-processing software products used

for reverse engineering and computer-aided inspection for quality control
purposes. Most of these products use point-cloud files from 3D scans as the
input for subsequent processing.
Company 3D scan-processing Computer-aided inspection
3Dflow 3DF Zephyr ̶

www.3dflow.net
3D Systems Geomagic Design X Geomagic Control X
www.3dsystems.com Geomagic Wrap
Geomagic Sculpt
Geomagic for SolidWorks
D2P
Agisoft Metashape ̶
www.agisoft.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Ansys SpaceClaim ̶
www.spaceclaim.com
Artec Artec Studio ̶
www.artec3d.com
Autodesk Fusion 360 Fusion 360
www.autodesk.com Mesh mixer PowerInspect
ReCap Pro
Bentley Systems Pointools ̶
www.bentley.com ContextCapture
Capturing Reality Reality Capture ̶
www.capturingreality.com
Creaform VXmodel VXinspect
www.creaform3d.com
Dassault Systémes CATIA ̶
www.3ds.com ICEM Surf
ScanTo3D add-in
FARO Scene CAM2 Measure
www.faro.com PointSense CAM2 SmartInspect
RevEng BuildIT
GOM ATOS Professional GOM Inspect
www.gom.com
Hexagon Leica Cyclone 3DR Spatial Analyzer
www.hexagonmi.com Leica Cyclone PC-DMIS
Leica CloudWorx Quindos
REcreate Inspire
InnovMetric PolyWorks Modeler PolyWorks Inspector
www.innovmetric.com PolyWorks Talisman PolyWorks Reviewer
KVS QuickSurface ̶
www.mesh2surface.com Mesh2Surface for Rhino3D
Materialise 3-matic ̶
www.materialise.com Mimics
Magics
Matterport 3D Content Platform ̶
www.matterport.com
Meter Meter CT Inspection
www.meter.parts
Metrologic Group ̶ Metrolog
www.metrologicgroup.com
Nikon Metrology Focus Handheld Focus Inspection
www.nikonmetrology.com
Occipital Skanect
www.occipital.com
Polyga XTract3D ̶
www.polyga.com Flex
PTC Creo Reverse Engineering ̶
www.ptc.com Extension
ReconstructMe ReconstructMe ̶
www.reconstructme.net
Reverse Engineering.com HighRES Integrated Point ̶
www.reverseengineering.com Cloud Processor
RevWare RevWorks ̶
www.revware.net
Riven Riven _
www.riven.ai

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Robert McNeel & Associates Rhino ̶
www.rhino3d.com
Siemens Imageware ̶
www.siemens.com
Trimble RealWorks ̶
www.trimble.com
Verisurf Verisurf Verisurf
www.verisurf.com
VirtualGrid VRMesh Studio VRMesh Survey
www.vrmesh.com VRMesh Reverse
Volume Graphics VGStudioMAX VGMetrology
www.volumegraphics.com VGStudio
Wenzel PointMaster OpenDMIS
www.wenzelamerica.com Quartis Virtual CMM
Source: Direct Dimensions and Wohlers Associates
Topology optimization Much of design for AM is done using traditional CAD software. However, the
and generative design geometric complexity offered by AM often requires specialized design tools.
The following table lists software products for generative design, TO, and
lattice formation. These products differ from traditional CAD, although
some include 3D modeling capabilities. TO, for example, is a physics-driven
method in which the user sets up one or more load cases and design
parameters. Using FEA, the software identifies and eliminates material
elements that do not contribute to the function of a part.
Company Product/module Application
Altair Inspire Generative design and TO

www.altair.com OptiStruct TO
Ansys Additive Suite TO and lattice structures
www.ansys.com
Autodesk Inventor CAD design, TO
www.autodesk.com Fusion 360 CAD design, TO, generative design,
latticing
Within Medical Lattice structures and porous coatings for
orthopedic implants
Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks CAD design and TO
www.3ds.com Tosca TO module within Abaqus
Desktop Metal Live Parts Generative design and TO
www.desktopmetal.com
DTU TopOpt TO
www.topopt.mek.dtu.dk
ELISE ELISE Algorithmic modeling
www.elise.de
Gravity Sketch Gravity Sketch Virtual reality-based modeling
www.gravitysketch.com
General Lattice GL Studio Lattice software application within Rhino
www.generallattice.com
Hexagon MSC Apex Generative design and TO
www.mscsoftware.com
nToplogy nTopology Generative design and TO
www.ntopology.com
ParaMatters CogniCAD Generative design, TO, and simulation
www.paramatters.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

PTC Creo Generative design and TO
www.ptc.com
Siemens Solid Edge CAD design, generative design, and TO
www.sw.siemens.com NX CAD software with integrated TO, lattice
structures, and support structure
generation
TOffeeAM TOffeeAM Generative design software
www.toffeeam.co.uk
Software tools for lattice, mesh, and cellular structures transform solid
volumes of a 3D model into many small trusses. These structures reduce
material and weight while maintaining sufficient load-bearing capabilities.
This is usually accomplished by transferring the completed model from a
traditional CAD system into specialized lattice-generating software.
Conversely, the output from optimization software is often input to a
traditional CAD system for additional work, such as surface smoothing.
Repair Once a design is complete, a CAD model must be converted to a format

suitable for the AM system. The STL file format has been the de facto AM
standard since AM was first commercialized in the late 1980s. However,
STL files are not always created properly due to flaws in the software or
errors by inexperienced users. The products in the following table are used
to repair 3D models. These software tools repair, manipulate, emboss text,
combine models, and offer other functionality to help prepare models for
3D printing.

3D-Tool 3D-Tool CAD- STL file viewing and checking
www.3d-tool.com Viewer
Ansys SpaceClaim CAD modeling software for analyzing,
www.ansys.com repairing, editing, slicing, and preparing
files for 3D printing
CADspan CADspan Mesh resurfacing of 3D CAD data and
www.cadspan.com STL file editing
DeskArtes 3Data Expert Data preparation and STL file editing
www.deskartes.com
Fixie Fixie Repairing and preparing files for 3D
www.fixie3d.com printing
MakePrintable MakePrintable STL file checking, repairing, and preparing
www.makeprintable.com for 3D printing
Materialise Magics Data preparation and STL editing with
www.materialise.com multiple modules available
MeshLab MeshLab Open-source processing and editing of
www.meshlab.net unstructured triangular meshes
Microsoft 3D Builder STL file editing
www.microsoft.com
Autodesk Meshmixer STL repairing
www.autodesk.com Fusion 360 Mesh repairing and preparing files for
Fusion 360 with printing
Netfabb
Polygonica Polygonica Processing and editing of triangular
www.polygonica.com meshes
University of Utah Seg3D Volume segmentation and processing tool
www.sci.utah.edu

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Simulation Simulation software is designed to predict distortions during a build. They

assist in preventing distortion-based build failures, particularly for metal
PBF. Like TO and FEA, the software relies on physics-based mathematics to
predict stress and distortions. Such predictions help prevent critical build
failures by identifying problems in advance.
Some software products compensate for distortion to produce accurate

dimensions of the final part compared to the original model. Simulations
may require extensive computer processing power and are often not
practical to run for every build. This software can improve speed and
quality, so its use will likely become standard practice when designing for
AM.

Additive Works Amphyon Simulation-based process-preparation
www.additive.works software for metal PBF
AlphaSTAR Genoa 3DP Design and build simulation for polymers,
www.alphastarcorp.com metals, and ceramics
Altair Inspire Print3D Simulation-based process-preparation
www.altair.com software for metal PBF
Ansys Additive Print Simulation for metal PBF and DED
www.ansys.com
Autodesk Fusion 360 with Simulation for metal PBF
www.autodesk.com Netfabb
Autodesk Netfabb Simulation for metal PBF and DED
Local simulation
Desktop Metal Live Sinter Metal AM simulation for sintered parts
e-Xstream Digimat Material simulation tool
www.e-xstream.com
Simufact Simufact Additive Metal AM build simulation

www.simufact.com
Slicing and print Once a 3D model is ready to print, slicing and print preparation software
converts the model into data the AM system reads. These software tools are
preparation
presented in the following table. They are sometimes referred to as slicers
because they slice the 3D model into thin cross sections that represent the
layers of the part.
Other features of these software tools may include 2D and 3D nesting,

support generation, and print visualization. Many industrial and desktop 3D
printers bundle system-specific software that includes these capabilities.
Machines from Markforged can read files from Eiger only, but many desktop
3D printers can use open-source software such as Cura or GrabCAD Print.
3D Systems 3DXpert Design optimization and print preparation

www.3dsystems.com for polymer and metal AM
Ansys Additive Print Support structure optimization and print
www.ansys.com Additive Prep preparation for metal AM
AstroPrint AstroPrint Cloud-based slicing
www.astroprint.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Autodesk Fusion 360 Slicing and print preparation

www.autodesk.com Fusion 360 with
Netfabb
CoreTechnologie 4D_Additive Build preparation and support generation
www.coretechnologie.com
Craftbot Craftware Pro Slicing and 3D printer hosting
www.craftbot.com
Create it REAL REALvision Slicing
www.createitreal.com
Dyndrite AM Toolkit Build preparation
www.dyndrite.com
gCodeViewer gCodeViewer Online G-code visualizer, viewer, and
gcode.ws analyzer
KISSlicer KISSlicer Slicing
www.kisslicer.com
Markforged Eiger Cloud-based build preparation, slicing,
www.markforged.com and print management
Materialise Magics Data preparation and STL editor with
www.materialise.com multiple modules available
e-Stage Automatic support material generation
OctoPrint OctoPrint Slicing
www.octoprint.org
Prusa Research PrusaSlicer Repairing, modifying, slicing, and 3D
www.prusa3d.com printer hosting
Raise3D ideaMaker Slicing
www.raise3d.com
Repetier Repetier Slicing and 3D printer hosting
www.repetier.com
ReplicatorG ReplicatorG Slicing
www.replicat.org
Simplify3D Simplify3D Checking, previewing, repairing, and
www.simplify3d.com preparing files for 3D printing
Slic3r Slic3r Slicing
www.slic3r.org
Stratasys GrabCAD Print Build preparation and slicing
www.grabcad.com
Triangulatica Triangulatica Slicing, repairing, and generation of
www.triangulatica.com lattice structures
Ultimaker Cura Slicing and 3D printer hosting
www.ultimaker.com
Print management Once a 3D model is sliced, it is sent to an AM machine. Print management

tools, such as those in the following table, oversee the printing process.
Sometimes print preparation and management software is packaged into a
single product. In other cases, the print management software is bundled
with the AM system. Open-source software is also available, particularly for
low-cost desktop systems. With some of these tools, users can start, queue,
and track jobs remotely.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

3D Printer OS 3DPrinterOS Cloud-based printer management
www.3dprinteros.com
AstroPrint AstroPrint Cloud-based printer management
www.astroprint.com
EOS EOSCONNECT Production management
www.eos.info
Markforged Eiger Fleet Cloud-based printer management
www.markforged.com
OctoPrint OctoPrint Network 3D printer hosting
www.octoprint.org
PiBot 3D Printer Printer control software
www.pibot.com Software
Printrun Printrun 3D printer hosting software, slicing, and
www.pronterface.com print controller
Raise3D RaiseCloud Cloud-based printer management
www.raise3d.com
Manufacturing Manufacturing execution system (MES) software is becoming more popular

execution systems among companies that operate many AM machines for production. MES
tools track, monitor, and control manufacturing processes. Some of the
systems manage the quotation of jobs and consider AM capacity and
materials at multiple locations.

3DTRUST Additive MES MES
www.3dtrust.de
3YOURMIND 3YOURMIND MES
www.3yourmind.com
AM-FLOW AM-FLOW MES
www.am-flow.com
Authentise Authentise MES MES
www.authentise.com
Autonomous Manufacturing AMFG MES
www.amfg.ai
DNA.am DNAam MES
www.dna.am
Fabpilot Fabpilot AM value chain support
www.fabpilot.com
Link3D Link3D MES
www.link3d.co
MakerOS MakerOS MES
www.makeros.com
Materialise Streamics AM enterprise management and control
www.materialise.com
Paperless Parts Paperless Parts MES
www.paperlessparts.com
Prosper3D Prosper3D MES
www.prosper3d.com
Oqton Oqton AM TO, simulation, and production
www.oqton.com management
Roboze Roboze Automate MES
www.roboze.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
A service provider or contract manufacturer that operates several PBF

systems may process thousands of parts per day for different customers.
Managing and tracking these parts through printing and post-processing
can be tedious. If not managed well, parts can be lost, fall out of spec, or be
delivered to the wrong customer. MES software is an especially powerful
tool when producing parts for end-use products.
Security Security has become a difficult but necessary issue to address. Daily,
terabytes of data flow between designers, machinists, clients, and other
stakeholders, often by unsecured connections. With AM, digital data is
transformed into physical objects. Corrupted data could lead to a
catastrophic failure. Creative approaches are being developed to securely
produce and maintain designs and AM parts, as shown in the following
table.

Alitheon FeaturePrint 3D print security based on machine vision
www.alitheon.com
Identify3D Protect Security
www.identify3d.com
Pirat.io Pirat.io Secure anti-piracy service
www.pirat.io
Stratasys ProtectAM Data security platform for government
www.stratsys.com users
Vistory MainChain Blockchain security system
www.vistory.com
Medical imaging Patient-specific medical devices and anatomical models almost always
by Andy Christensen originate from radiological imaging data. Medical image processing
and Nicole Wake software is used to translate between radiology file formats, most
commonly Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM),
and AM file formats. Theoretically, any volumetric radiological imaging
dataset could be used to create these devices and models. High-quality
medical image data is needed to produce models and devices.
Computed tomography (CT) is the usual method for imaging bone

structures and contrast-enhanced vasculature due to the relative ease of
image post-processing. In-office cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)
has become popular in the dental field and for oral and maxillofacial
surgeries. Another popular imaging technique is magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI). It is used to create anatomical models. MRI is less useful for
bone imaging, but highlights soft tissue, such as solid organs and cancerous
lesions.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Image segmentation from a CT scan of congenital scoliosis

of the upper thoracic spine and performed with
D2P software, courtesy of Nicole Wake
CT uses many X-ray projections through a subject to computationally

construct a 3D image. A narrow X-ray beam passes through the subject and
projects onto an opposing detector, similar to traditional 2D X-ray imaging.
The X-ray source and detector rotate around a stationary subject and
acquire images at a number of angles to create a cross-sectional image. The
image of the cross section is then computed from these projections in a
post-processing step. Only one contrast mechanism is used with CT
because the signal intensity is linearly proportional to the tissue density.
CT is the method of choice for bone imaging and is typically used to
produce medical models of hard tissue structures.
CT scan image through a pelvis with bone (yellow arrow) and

tumor contrast (blue arrow), courtesy of Nicole Wake
CBCT operates on the same principle as traditional CT. However, instead of

a single, thin X-ray beam making one revolution per image slice, a large,
diverging X-ray beam (a cone beam) is paired with a large 2D detector

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
array. In this way, CBCT allows for acquisition of a single image dataset
from one revolution of the source-detector pair. Benefits include simplified
logistics, ease of scanning, and reduced radiation exposure. However,
increasing the span of the beam degrades contrast resolution, making
segmentation somewhat difficult. Nevertheless, CBCT is very common for
clinical use, particularly in dental specialties, oral and maxillofacial
surgery, and ear, nose, and throat clinics. The ease of installation in a
clinical setting and a relatively low price point make it an attractive option.
It is also used for patient alignment tasks in radiation therapy and image-
guided surgery.
MRI is based on the principle of nuclear magnetic resonance and employs

strong magnetic fields and radio waves. Hydrogen protons in water
molecules become aligned in a strong primary magnetic field. Radio waves
at a specific frequency are introduced to perturb protons from their
alignment within the magnetic field. The frequency can be calculated from
the strength of the magnetic field. When the radio waves are removed,
protons return to their alignment within the magnetic field at different
rates and emit a measurable echo signal. The rate of return depends on the
surrounding molecules (i.e., tissue type). The echo signal is used to
determine relaxation times, which is the time required for hydrogen nuclei
to return to their alignment in the magnetic field. Local relaxation times
are used to reconstruct cross-sectional images.
MRI image showing the same pelvis cross section as previous illustration;
bone (yellow arrow) is less visible, but the tumor (blue arrow)
is better defined, courtesy of Nicole Wake
Most medical imaging technologies used for medical modeling produce

data in serial section format in the form of 2D images. These images
represent a finite thickness, with data taken at increments along the axis of
an object being scanned. The 2D images, stacked at the associated
thickness increments, form a 3D volume. For example, a CT scan may be
taken using slice thicknesses of 1 mm (0.04 in). In this case, an object that
is 20 mm (0.79 in) in length would have 20 slices. Within these 20 slices,
data is available for the entire object being scanned. However, image-
processing tools are needed to “extract” the areas of interest, such as bone
structure or a tumor. In-plane resolution for most medical imaging studies
of all types can be 0.1–1.0 mm (0.004–0.04 in).

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Once a dataset has been acquired, the images are typically stored in a
hospital picture archive and communication system (PACS). The most
common format found today for medical imaging is the open-source
standard DICOM. Working Group 17 of the DICOM Standards Committee
has worked to support storage and encapsulation needs for 3D printing file
formats, including STL and OBJ.
Specialized software is needed to efficiently and accurately handle medical

image data to read the DICOM format and to support image processing.
Exporting this medical image data to a suitable AM format is also crucial to
workflow accuracy. Primary tasks in medical image processing for AM
include 1) import of native medical images, 2) image segmentation, 3)
slice/volume editing, and 4) STL file generation. The following chart shows
some of the major steps in producing anatomical models.
Overview of the process of using medical imaging data to produce a

3D-printed anatomical model, courtesy of Nicole Wake
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been more active in the
last decade regarding the regulatory landscape for medical devices made
by AM. In 2014, the FDA held a public workshop on the subject attended by
more than 500 industry attendees. In May 2016, the FDA published a draft
guidance document entitled Technical Considerations for Additive
Manufactured Medical Devices. It outlines the administration’s collective
thinking on the topic. The draft technical guidance was made final in
December 2017. It is a formal reference from a regulatory and quality
assurance standpoint. Medical device manufacturers consult it when
working on a 3D-printed medical device. The FDA has reportedly cleared
more than 225 AM medical devices as of early 2022.
In November 2016, the Radiological Society of North America launched its

3D Printing Special Interest Group (SIG). It marked a significant point for
the technology and its use in clinical care. The group reached several
important milestones in its first three years. It published the first clinical
consensus guidelines document, which is a comprehensive review and
vetting of clinical diagnoses and indications for 3D printing. The SIG

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
collaborated with the FDA to hold a joint meeting in August 2017. Also, a
collaboration occurred with the American College of Radiology (ACR) on
establishing new Category III CPT codes for anatomical models and guides.
The SIG collaborated with ACR to establish a first-of-its-kind Anatomic
Model Registry.
In December 2021, the FDA released a white paper titled 3D Printing

Medical Devices at the Point of Care. The stated purpose is to solicit
opinions from relevant stakeholders. The paper does not represent FDA
policy, but the topics inform the organization’s viewpoints surrounding the
topic. The paper highlights three main scenarios for 3D printing of medical
devices at the point of care, including the following:
▪ Healthcare facility using a cleared medical device production system

▪ Traditional medical device manufacturer co-located at or near the
healthcare facility
▪ Healthcare facility assuming all responsibilities of traditional medical
device manufacturer
This is a refinement of the previously presented Conceptual Framework

that the FDA began discussing in 2019. The FDA seeks feedback on what it
is calling “very low risk devices,” which may fall outside of its scope. The
concept of risk is discussed throughout the FDA document, as are the
varying levels for healthcare facilities, capabilities, and controls. Both of
these issues may be key to determining what devices are considered “very
low risk.”
The following table lists some of the medical image processing software
products that have received FDA clearance. These products can be used to
produce 3D-printed anatomical models for diagnostic use.
Product Company Website

ASP System CenterMed www.centermed.com/surgical-planning/asp
BoneLogic Paragon 28 www.disior.com/surgical-planning.html
Customize 3D-SIDE www.3d-side.com/applications
D2P 3D Systems www.3dsystems.com/dicom-to-print
ImmersiveView Immersive Touch www.immersivetouch.com/immersiveview-surgical-plan
Surgical Plan
Mimics Enlight Materialise www.materialise.com/en/medical/software/materialise-mimics-enlight
Mimics inPrint Materialise www.materialise.com/en/medical/software/materialise-mimics-inprint
Mimics Medical Materialise www.materialise.com/en/medical/mimics-innovation-suite/mimics
Simpleware Scan Synopsys www.synopsys.com/simpleware/software/scanip.html
IP Medical
Source: Andy Christensen, Nicole Wake, and Wohlers Associates
The following table lists medical image processing software that has
received FDA clearance for advanced visualization of medical images in 3D.
They apply to on-screen visualization and not 3D printing, although they
may have non-diagnostic outputs that include 3D-printable files.

3D Doctor Able Software Corp. www.ablesw.com/3d-doctor/3ddoctor.html
Amira Thermo Fisher www.fei.com/software/amira-3d-for-life-sciences
Scientific
AVIEW Modeler Coreline Soft www.aviewmodeler.com
AW GE www.gehealthcare.com/en/products/advanced-visualization
Dolphin 3D Surgery Dolphin/Patterson www.dolphinimaging.com
Dental
F.A.S.T. Fovia www.fovia.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

IntelliSpace Portal Philips www.usa.philips.com/healthcare/product/HC881102/intellispace-
portal-10-advanced-visualization
iNtuition TeraRecon www.terarecon.com
Medical Design Anatomage www.anatomage.com/medical-design-studio
Studio
OsiriX MD Pixmeo www.osirix-viewer.com
Simpleware ScanIP Synopsys www.synopsys.com/simpleware.html
Medical
Synapse 3D Fuji www.fujifilmusa.com/products/medical/medical-informatics/radiology/3D
www.healthcare.siemens.com/medical-imaging-it/advanced-
Syngo.Via Frontier Siemens visualization-solutions/syngo-via-frontier/use
Visage 7 Visage Imaging www.visageimaging.com/visage-7
Vitrea Vital Images/Canon www.vitalimages.com/product-information/3d-printing
The following table lists medical image processing software products that
have not received FDA clearance. These products may be used for research
and other purposes.

3D Slicer Brigham and www.slicer.org
Women's Hospital
4DICOM Unknown www.4dicom.com
Analyze/Analyze Pro Analyze Direct www.analyzedirect.com
AnatomicsRx Anatomics www.anatomics.com/anatomicsrx/ordering-software
Itk-SNAP University of Utah www.itksnap.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php
and University of
Pennsylvania
MeVisLab Mevis Medical www.mevislab.de
Solutions AG
NemoFAB Nemotec www.nemotec.com/en/software/fabsoftware
OsiriX Lite Pixmeo www.osirix-viewer.com
Ossa3D Conceptualiz www.conceptualiz.com/products_ossa.html
Rhino3D Medical Mirrakoi www.mirrakoi.com/rhino3d-medical/
Seg3D/Biomesh3D University of Utah www.sci.utah.edu/cibc-software/seg3d.html
Sliceomatic 5.0 Tomovision www.tomovision.com/products/sliceomatic.html
Process monitoring Quality assurance (QA) is necessary to provide confidence for serial
production using metal PBF. Many conventional manufacturing
of metal powder processes competing with PBF are highly controlled and monitored to
bed fusion provide this level of confidence. In-situ process monitoring is one way to
by Luke Scime reach a level of QA that meets industry standards.
The relative complexity and novelty of metal PBF present challenges for
implementing traditional QA programs. However, the unique
characteristics of the process also present opportunities for
revolutionizing the QA paradigm by supporting the production of “born-
qualified” parts. The born-qualified approach contrasts traditional QA that
relies on performance statistics collected from a large volume of nominally
identical parts. They also depend on a historical understanding of long-
established methods of manufacturing. The layer-wise nature of PBF
permits observation of the internal volume of parts as they are produced.
Other challenges of metal PBF relate to the size and timescales over which
the processes operate. For example, detection of relevant porosity may
require collecting data with a spatial resolution in the order of 10 µm
(0.0004 in). This must be achieved for an entire build consisting of

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
thousands of kilometers of melt pool travel. Similarly, with high cooling

rates, melt-pool-scale dynamics occur in tens or hundreds of
microseconds. Data is typically recorded at rates above 10 kHz. For builds
that process for one week or longer, this method quickly becomes a
substantial burden of data transmission, processing, and storage.
The aim is to achieve a generalized framework for qualifying low-

production-volume AM parts with minimal reliance on expensive ex-situ
characterization. This requires a series of algorithms and models to
process and correlate in-situ data collected during the printing process.
This framework integrates data across different scales and facilitates
machine training or deep-learning-driven transfer functions. The first
stages consist of traditional signal processing and computer vision
algorithms. They are used to enhance, spatially map, co-register, and fuse
the raw, multi-modal sensor data.
The next intermediate stage is generally dedicated to anomaly and defect

detection at a relatively high resolution. This can be achieved using deep-
learning-driven image analysis. Once the anomaly locations are identified,
they can be included in a lower spatial resolution machine learning model.
This model is trained to predict local material properties of interest. At this
scale, low-resolution temporal data, thermal modeling, microstructural
modeling, and post-processing operation data can be included. Also
included is local part geometries and process metadata. Finally, the
predicted localized material properties can be loaded into traditional,
physics-based finite element models. They are used to predict the
performance of a part in a specific application under a particular loading
condition.
Sensing techniques for PBF process monitoring generally fall into on-axis
or off-axis sensing. On-axis sensors are primarily applicable for laser-based
processes and “track” the melt pool throughout the entire build. Typically,
these sensors image the vapor plume light emissions just above the melt
pool. They can indicate melt pool size, stability, morphology, temperature,
and composition. The sensors must collect data at high rates (around 10
kHz) to capture the relevant dynamics and produce results with the
required spatial resolution. The most common on-axis sensors are
photodiodes of one- or two-color pyrometers, thermal imagers, visible-
light imagers, and spectrometers.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
High-speed visible-light melt pool image, courtesy of

Brian Fisher and Carnegie Mellon University
Off-axis sensors do not pass through the laser optics. They have either a
field of view covering the entire print area or a separate scanning
mechanism to scan the powder bed. Typically, such sensors produce one or
more “images” of the print area after each layer is printed. Common data
capture modalities include imaging after fusion of the layer, imaging after
spreading of the layer, and imaging during the layer fusion itself. These
sensors are often designed to detect part-scale cooling rates, powder
spreading issues, part distortion, ejecta from the melt pool, dimensional
tolerance deviations, and machine stability issues.
The most common off-axis sensors include visible-light imagers, infrared

or near-infrared imagers, integrated or long-exposure infrared imagers,
and structured light topology measurements. Others include profilometry
measurements (either with a laser or a mechanical probe), high-resolution
line scanners, and backscatter or secondary electron detection for electron
beam PBF.
Visible light images captured immediately after layer fusion (left) and powder
spreading (right) on a laser PBF system, courtesy of the Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Off-axis sensors that record at very high frequencies share characteristics

with both on- and off-axis techniques. Such modalities include passive
acoustic sensors and infrared photodiodes with fields of view covering the
entire build area. By synchronizing the data with the laser beam location,
the time-resolved information can be mapped spatially, often with
resolutions approaching or exceeding that of on-axis sensors.
Many commercial machines generate log files containing basic information

about machine performance. Recorded data includes build plate
temperature, shield gas flow rates, chamber pressure, oxygen
concentration, and actuator current draw. While the data acquisition
frequency varies widely between manufacturers, it can be used to identify
anomalous processing conditions that may cause part or layer defects. This
data can also be mapped spatially if it is collected at sufficiently high
frequency with scan-path information.
Several promising non-commercialized sensing modalities are currently

under development. These techniques focus on detection of small
subsurface pores as this goal remains challenging for current technologies.
These sensing modalities include on-axis optical coherence tomography,
surface acoustic waves, active ultrasonic transducers, and Schlieren
imaging of the vapor plume. High-speed X-ray melt pool radiography is a
very useful tool for understanding process dynamics. However, the high

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
photon flux restricts this technique to only the largest X-ray sources,
making it non-viable for production-scale monitoring.
High-speed X-ray melt pool radiography images with keyhole vapor

cavity (top) and solidification cracking (bottom), courtesy of
Carnegie Mellon University and Argonne National Laboratory
Collecting in-situ process data is only part of the challenge. Typically,

substantial data processing is required to correlate the data with relevant
part quality metrics. Such algorithms include data reduction and
compression techniques, computer vision analyses, data registration and
synchronization, and transformations between the frequency and time
domains. Machine learning and deep learning algorithms are being used to
detect defects and anomalies in both spatial and temporal data.
For QA, it is insufficient to merely collect the data. The correlations

between the in-situ data and the part’s properties must also be
understood. Currently, the AM community approaches this challenge by
using statistical and machine learning models. Due to the high data
dimensionality and the complexity of the manufacturing processes, such
models require a large amount of data for “training.”
While collecting enough in-situ data can be difficult, it is typically the

collection of the corresponding ex-situ measurements that prove to be the
bottleneck. Gray box and relay models are being developed that combine
machine learning with physics-based modeling (e.g., thermal simulations)
and engineering assumptions. They are expected to reduce the amount of
training data required. Algorithm development should also prioritize
machine, material, and geometric independence. This will increase the
likelihood that solutions with high development costs can be scaled and
broadly applied across the industry.
PBF machine manufacturers are increasingly recognizing the importance

and added value of in-situ process monitoring. Most manufacturers include
one or more sensing systems on their commercial AM systems. In general,
commercial development of powerful data analysis and data fusion
algorithms lags behind commercial sensor deployment.
A representative list of commercially available sensing systems has been

compiled by Wohlers Associates, in alphabetical order. Significant activity
in this space means that new companies and solutions are continually
entering the market, so the list may not be exhaustive.
Aconity3D The company focuses on open-architecture laser PBF systems. Its

systems are highly configurable and most support both on-axis
photodiodes and on-axis high-speed cameras for process monitoring.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Machine sensor data is accessible by the AconitySTUDIO control

software.
Addiguru Addiguru is a relatively new company offering third-party process
monitoring solutions for laser PBF systems. The company’s system
consists of a visible-light camera that captures images of the powder bed.
These images are then processed with a machine learning algorithm that
flags defects such as recoater-to-part impacts.
Visible-light image from powder bed with

highlighted defects, courtesy of Addiguru
Additive Monitoring This startup company is developing a low-cost sensor capable of

performing high-resolution topological measurements of the powder
Systems
bed. These measurements can then be analyzed to detect defects or other
process anomalies. The company’s sensor and software solutions are
third-party installations on existing PBF printers.
EOS EOS’s sensing capabilities are integrated into the EOSTATE Monitoring
software suite. EOSTATE Base tracks printer health and process
parameters. It monitors the oxygen concentration within the build
chamber, the status of the shielding gas filtration system, and build plate
temperature. EOSTATE PowderBed captures visible-light images of the
powder bed immediately after layer fusion and after powder spreading.
Currently, EOSTATE PowderBed is primarily a documentation feature,
although EOS and its partners are developing algorithms for automated
analysis of these layer images.
EOSTATE MeltPool uses one on-axis photodiode and one off-axis

photodiode to collect light emitted from the melt pool, vapor plume, and
the surrounding region. These data streams have a high temporal and
spatial resolution and can provide useful insight into off-nominal laser or
melting conditions. EOSTATE Exposure OT images the entire build area
using an off-axis near-infrared camera during layer fusion. By capturing
data at a moderately high frame rate, a single composite image can be
constructed for each layer. This image contains information related to
emitted light intensity across the layer and can be used to observe spatter,
hot spots, and cold spots.
GE Additive GE Additive’s laser PBF systems are equipped with varying process
monitoring capabilities. Its M2 products log machine health data,
information about the shielding gas flow, oxygen concentration within
the build chamber, and build-plate temperature. The latest M2 models
are equipped with the QM Coating module. It captures visible-light
images of the powder bed immediately after layer fusion and after
powder spreading. These images are primarily used for documentation.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
However, they can also be analyzed under certain conditions to detect

powder short feeds and automatically adjust the powder dosing factor.
The QM Meltpool module consists of an on-axis high-speed camera and an

on-axis photodiode. The module captures emitted and reflected light from
the melt pool region. This data is spatially mapped for visualization
purposes. The QM Coating and QM Meltpool modules are generally not
available on the larger format X Line systems.
GE Additive’s electron-beam PBF systems are equipped with extensive

machine health logging capabilities. Hundreds of parameters are tracked
throughout the build. They include information about the build chamber
conditions, temperatures, electron gun, and raking mechanism. These
machines also include the LayerQam system, which captures multiple
near-infrared images of the powder bed for each layer. These images can
be analyzed to detect certain types of surface-connected porosities.
Layer Metrics Layer Metrics, a startup, uses a unique amalgam of spectral,

interferometric, and imaging techniques to simultaneously monitor melt
pool, laser, powder bed, and layer surface characteristics in real time. An
optical fiber probe array mounted on the printer captures multi-featured
build information, which is transmitted to a remote interrogator
instrument with single-camera detection. The system supports closed-
loop control based on live data in a compressed format.
Process monitoring system, courtesy of Layer Metrics
Manufacturing The U.S. Department of Energy’s Manufacturing Demonstration Facility at

Demonstration Facility Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is licensing Peregrine, a printer
and sensor-agnostic data analysis tool for PBF systems. Multi-modal
layer-wise image data can be co-registered, fused, and analyzed for
anomalies using deep learning pixel-wise segmentation algorithms.
Anomaly detection occurs in real time throughout the printing process.
Temporal data, part features, scan path information, and metadata are
combined with the segmentation results in a common interface and suite
of visualizations.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Peregrine’s visualization interface, courtesy of the

Manufacturing Demonstration Facility at ORNL
Open Additive The company is dedicated to developing systems with open

architectures. Its laser-based PANDA printers include the AMSENSE
module, which collects visible-light images of the powder bed
immediately after layer fusion and after powder spreading. The company
also includes an application programming interface that allows users to
integrate their own data analytics code and multiple user-accessible
viewports on the top of the machine.
The optional TOMOTHERM module images the build area using an off-axis
near-infrared camera during layer fusion. By capturing data at a
moderately high frame rate, a single composite image can be constructed
for each layer. The SPAT-TRAK module uses a medium-speed thermal
imaging system to capture spatter events and spatially maps them for each
layer.
Thermal tomography from a single layer,

courtesy of Open Additive
Renishaw Renishaw’s latest laser PBF systems are equipped with InfiniAM Central,
which logs information on machine health, machine productivity, and
build chamber conditions. This data can be streamed in real time and
compared across multiple print jobs and printers. Renishaw machines
are also equipped with the LaserVIEW and MeltVIEW modules. They use
multiple photodiodes, sensitive to different wavelengths, to measure
laser output and melt pool thermal emissions, respectively. This data can
be analyzed using the InfiniAM Spectral software, which can give insight
into off-nominal conditions and processing defects.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Sigma Labs Sigma Labs is a third-party provider of laser PBF hardware and software
process monitoring solutions. The company’s PrintRite3D system is
based around multiple complementary on-axis and off-axis photodiodes,
which are sensitive to specific wavelength ranges. By combining thermal
emissions data from multiple sensors, local temperatures around the
melt pool can be estimated.
Sigma Labs has developed several complementary quality metrics, which

can be used to detect off-nominal printing conditions and defects. The
system relies heavily on edge computing for real-time data analysis and
visualization. Efforts are underway to train machine learning algorithms
to improve the system’s defect detection capabilities.
Thermal emission density mapping, courtesy of Sigma Labs
SLM Solutions The process monitoring system from SLM Solutions includes the Layer
Control System (LCS), Laser Power Monitoring (LPM), and Melt Pool
Monitoring (MPM). LCS logs machine health information as well as
conditions inside the build chamber. Visible-light images of the powder
bed are also captured.
LPM uses an on-axis photodiode to continuously monitor laser power

throughout the build and compare it to the commanded laser power.
MPM uses a second on-axis photodiode to capture thermal emissions
from the melt pool, vapor plume, and surrounding region.
Velo3D Velo3D’s Assure software monitors the health of the machine, confirms
the parts are of good quality, and documents this information for the end-
user. The company’s Sapphire printers perform automatic laser
calibrations for each build. To reduce the need for support material, the
topology of the powder bed is monitored and variations or issues are
detected.
Outlook Industry deployment of on-axis sensors is rapidly becoming standard for

laser PBF machines. However, the algorithms required to process the
data and identify relevant anomalies and defects remain under
development. An increasing number of startups are addressing this
critical software need, and several established companies, such as
Materialise, are developing commercial offerings. Off-axis sensors,
particularly visible-light imaging of the powder bed, are also nearly
standard on industrial machines. Detection of millimeter-scale anomalies
using these systems is much closer to maturation.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The detection of anomalies smaller than 100 µm (0.004 in) and effective
measurement of thin-walled structures requires higher resolution imagers
than those typically installed by the machine manufacturers. Perhaps the
greatest sensing challenge remains robust detection of relatively small,
subsurface porosity in laser PBF processes. For electron beam systems,
near-infrared imaging can be effective. Fortunately, industry and research
institutions are investing a large amount of effort in this specific area.
The PBF community will need to develop procedures for qualified data
collection and storage of extremely large datasets as part of a digital twin
approach. Creation of the “born-qualified” paradigm will also require
identifying the correlations between observed in-situ process signatures
and ex-situ measurements and part performance. Developing this
capability will require additional research into rapid characterization of
AM parts and integration with physics-informed modeling.
As with all QA programs, monitoring techniques require validation. Due to

recent reliance on machine and deep learning techniques for defect
detection and correlation, additional scrutiny from regulatory bodies can
be anticipated. Currently, both industry and funding agencies are offering
strong support for research aimed at solving the most pressing PBF
process monitoring challenges.
Post-processing Post-processing encompasses all manufacturing activities that occur

from the time a build is complete to the time the part is used. Post-
processing is a critically important aspect of 3D printing. Those less
familiar with AM will often overlook it. As with other manufacturing
methods, 3D printing is not a “pushbutton” technology. It is a collection
of processes, techniques, and specialized skills necessary to produce a
quality finished part.
The three basic steps in the AM process are pre-processing, part building,
and post-processing. The first and third are detailed in the following tables.
Use of specific pre- and post-processing steps depends on the application
and specific part requirements.
Pre-processing
Metal powder Polymer powder Material Vat photo- Directed energy Material jetting Binder jetting
bed fusion bed fusion extrusion polymerization deposition
Check quality of Check quality of Check quality of Check quality of Check quality of Check quality of Check quality of
files and repair if files and repair if files and repair if files and repair if files and repair if files and repair if files and repair if
necessary necessary necessary necessary necessary necessary necessary
Prepare job in Prepare job in Prepare job in Prepare job in Prepare job in Prepare job in Prepare job in
software by software by software by software by software by software by software by
arranging parts arranging parts arranging parts arranging parts arranging parts arranging parts arranging parts
on build platform on build platform on build platform on build platform on build platform on build platform on build platform
and generating and generating and generating and generating and generating
support support support support support
structures structures structures structures structures
Clean AM system Clean AM system Clean AM system Clean AM system Clean AM system Clean AM system Clean AM system
Inert and preheat Inert and preheat Preheat build – Inert and preheat – Preheat build
build chamber build chamber chamber build chamber if chamber if
inert atmosphere necessary
system

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Post-processing
Metal powder Polymer powder Material Vat photo- Directed energy Material jetting Binder jetting
bed fusion bed fusion extrusion polymerization deposition
Remove build Find and remove Remove parts Drain and recycle Remove build Remove parts Find and remove
plate from build parts from from build unused material plate from build from build parts from
chamber powder bed chamber as applicable chamber chamber powder bed
Remove loose Recycle Remove parts Remove parts Thermal stress Remove support Recycle
powder and remaining powder from build plate from build relief, if required material remaining powder
recycle as as applicable chamber mechanically, as applicable
applicable through waterjet,
or dissolution
Thermal stress Media-blast parts Remove support Wash off excess Remove parts Finish surface: Air-blast parts to
relief to remove material uncured resin in from build plate sand, paint, etc. remove surface
surface powder chemical bath powder
Remove parts Finish surface: Surface finish: Remove support Hot isostatic Inspect Chemically
from build plate tumble, sand, sand, vapor material pressing debind metal
dye, paint, etc. smooth, paint, parts (process
etc. dependent)
Hot isostatic Inspect Inspect Post-cure in Remove support – Bake or sinter

pressing ultraviolet light structures metal parts as
chamber necessary
Remove support – – Finish surface: Heat treat as – Strengthen by

structures sand, paint, etc. necessary infiltration for
polymer, gypsum,
or ceramic parts
Heat treat as – – Inspect Surface machine, – Finish surface:

necessary shot peen, sand, paint, etc.
abrasive flow
machine, etc.
Surface machine, – – – Inspect – Inspect

shot peen,
abrasive flow
machine, etc.
Inspect – – – – – –
Polymer parts When a build is complete, parts are removed from the build chamber,
along with excess build material. Depending on the process, this extra
material may be uncured liquid resin or loose powder. Much of it can
usually be reused.
Parts made by vat photopolymerization (VPP) must be thoroughly washed

to remove uncured resin. Some manufacturers provide options to clean
parts by hand, such as the Form 3 Finish Kit from Formlabs. Many
companies, such as Carbon and Formlabs, offer automated washing
systems. PostProcess Technologies produces immersion and spray
systems to automate the cleaning process. As VPP systems are used
increasingly to manufacture parts in high volumes, more solutions will
become available to remove bottlenecks in the production process.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
DEMI system uses fluid, ultrasonic technology,

and heat to clean AM parts, courtesy
of PostProcess Technologies
The AM group at BMW uses a robot arm to transfer builds from its VPP
systems directly to automated washers. The company reports that the
robot increased the print-cell efficiency by more than 400%. With this
advancement, BMW claims that two M2 systems from Carbon could
provide the throughput of nine systems.
Parts from polymer PBF systems must cool before they are removed from
the build chamber. If parts are removed prematurely, they often warp due
to rapid, uneven cooling. Cooling typically takes about the same amount of
time as part printing. For example, if printing time is 10 hours, cooling is
about 10 hours. HP offers its Fast Cooling station, which pulls a vacuum
through the build chamber to reduce cooling time to a few hours for a full
build. The system also reclaims, filters, and mixes used powder for reuse.
Loose powder from PBF builds is typically removed using brushes,

compressed air, vibrating tables, and media blasting. To reduce this time-
consuming manual work, many companies offer automated blasting
systems.
Removing loose powder from a polymer PBF part,

courtesy of Paragon Rapid Technologies
Unsintered polymer powder often becomes “caked” together during the

printing process, making the powder difficult to remove from long thin
tubes or holes. A useful method is to include cleanout holes in the design
along the length of the tubes.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Cleanout holes for easier powder removal, courtesy of Ben Weiss
Material extrusion (MEX), material jetting (MJT), and VPP use support
material to anchor parts to a build platform. These support structures are
removed after the build is complete. This is often a manual process,
particularly for MEX and VPP. These systems often build both the part and
support structures from the same material.
Polymer MEX part with supports (left) and after removal

(right), courtesy of Olaf Diegel and Gregor Kregar
Some MEX systems print with soluble support material. The support
material on these parts is dissolved using a solution, often combined with
ultrasonic washing. This can take several hours, particularly if the support
material is in long internal channels. This type of support is advantageous
for fragile features that might otherwise be damaged if supports were
removed mechanically.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Water-soluble support material (left) and removed (right), courtesy of Infinite
Most VPP parts require post-curing in a chamber of ultraviolet (UV) light. It

is generally easier to remove the supports prior to the post-cure while the
material is slightly soft. MJT systems often use a wax-like material that is
removed by water jet or melted away using heat.
MJT parts with support material (white), courtesy of Olaf Diegel
It is not unusual for the overall size of a part to exceed the AM system
build-volume dimensions. In this case, the part may be sectioned into
smaller parts that are printed and then joined in a post-processing step.
Gluing is the most common method. With most AM materials and
processes, common epoxy glues work well. With some AM materials,
including PBF polyamides, cyanoacrylate glues can be used. Joints can be
designed into the parts to help facilitate assembly and joining.
Technique for joining polymer parts,

courtesy of Olaf Diegel

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Surface treatment Most AM parts require finishing to achieve the desired surfaces and
dimensions. The degree of finishing depends on how the part will be
of polymer parts
used. Concept models and early prototype parts for rapid design iteration
may require little or no finishing.
A pattern used for investment casting or silicone rubber tooling, also called
vacuum casting, often requires extensive finishing to achieve an
exceptionally smooth surface. This includes the removal of all “stair steps”
caused by the layer-by-layer process and artifacts left from the support
structures. An experienced model maker typically does this finishing by
hand, although it may also include machining and polishing. Finishing
techniques vary by process, material, and required properties.
Vapor treatment smooths the surface of a part with vaporized solvents. It

is particularly suitable for complex AM geometries, because it does not
require part-specific tooling. Acetone is used as the solvent for MEX parts
made in acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), and trichloromethane, also
known as chloroform, is used for MEX parts made in polylactic acid (PLA).
The process requires great care and precise timing because the part is
being dissolved during vapor treatment.
Vapor treatment can result in a surface finish comparable to injection

molding, but dimensional accuracy is impacted. The Powerfuse S system
from DyeMansion and the PostPro SF series systems from AMT use
proprietary solvents. These systems automate the vapor-smoothing
process for polyamide (PA) PBF parts.
Polymer PBF parts before (bottom) and after chemical

vapor smoothing (top), courtesy of AMT
Vibrational grinding and abrasive tumbling are finishing processes used to

deburr, descale, burnish, clean, and brighten AM parts. Typical tumbling
time for polymer PBF parts is in the range of 3–6 hours, depending on the
abrasive medium used. Sharp corners can become slightly rounded during
the process. The following image is an example of finishing by abrasive
tumbling of jewelry. The tan cylinders are the tumbling media.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Abrasive tumbling of 3D-printed necklace,

courtesy of Nervous Systems
Media blasting uses a stream of abrasive media, such as sand or glass

beads, to smooth, roughen, reshape, or clean a surface. With PBF, it is
mostly used to remove powder that adheres to the surfaces of parts. The
same PA powder used as the build material can be used as a gentler
blasting media.
If an engineering-quality surface finish or accuracy is required, manual or

CNC machining may be the only way to achieve it. The machining process
is the same as with any other polymer machining, although care must be
taken for MEX parts due to weakness in the vertical (build) direction. Many
large-scale MEX systems, such as those from Cincinnati and Thermwood,
have built-in hybrid milling capabilities to finish parts during or after
printing. Some smaller systems, such as those from Diabase, do the same
on a smaller scale. Polymer PBF parts may be coated with cyanoacrylate
before machining to improve surface quality.
LSAM 1010 system, courtesy of Thermwood
Dyeing is a good technique to apply color to hygroscopic polymer parts.

Nearly any synthetic clothing or leather dye can be used. The final color
depends on the time the parts are in the dye. Automated dyeing systems
are available, such as those made by DyeMansion and CIPRES.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Color options for PBF parts, courtesy of DyeMansion
Painting is one of the most common surface treatment processes for

polymer AM parts. The process generally requires sanding, priming, and an
optional clear coat at the end. To reduce the stair-step effect, automotive
body filler can be applied to parts, followed by sanding prior to painting.
Applying textures to the surface of parts can hide the stair-step lines
caused by the layers. They are especially visible when curved surfaces are
nearly horizontal during the build.
As-printed part (center) and textured parts (left and right), courtesy of Olaf Diegel
Powder coating can be used on polymer parts, assuming they can

withstand temperatures of about 200°C (392°F). UV-curable powder-
coating materials can also be used and require a lower temperature of
around 100°C (212°F). In some cases, the plastic surface can be treated
with a conductive paint that will provide electrostatic attraction. As with
other coating techniques, preserving dimensional accuracy is more
difficult. Powder coating is typically used to meet a technical or
performance requirement. An example is reducing friction with a coat of
polytetrafluoroethylene, also known as Teflon.
Metal coatings improve appearance, impart thermal and electrical

conductivity, and improve strength. Techniques include electroless plating,
electroplating, vacuum metalizing, and physical vapor deposition. The
metal coating process from 3DDC involves metal plating that improves
mechanical properties such as strength, creep characteristics, and aging
stability. RePliForm specializes in electroplating AM parts. The company’s
copper/nickel coatings make plastic AM parts durable enough to be used
for a wide range of applications.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Metal-plated AM parts, courtesy of Graphite

Additive Manufacturing and BJS Company
Hydrographics, also known as water transfer printing, is a method of

applying printed designs to surfaces. The process uses a water-soluble film
to transfer an image to a part as it is carefully dipped into a film media.
Hydrographics process applied to plagiocephaly

helmet, courtesy of Crispin Orthotics
Wrapping a part consists of covering it with a stretchable polymer film.

This technique is commonly used in the automotive industry, and can be
used with AM parts, assuming they are not too complex. Wraps can be
textured to add a different 3D effect to a part.
Metal parts Considerable post-processing is usually required before metal AM parts

are ready for their intended application. The extent of this depends on
the material, process, and desired function of the parts.
Part design and pre-processing must include consideration of the surface

areas where post-processing and finishing are required. Understanding the
surface-finish requirements and critical-dimension locations is important.
It is often necessary to add material to a CAD model in areas where
machining or grinding is needed.
Another critical prebuild step is determining the type and location of the
support structures. With metal PBF, support material is required for the
first series of layers, as well as unsupported layers that follow (i.e.,
overhanging features). Supports are more critical for parts built on laser
PBF systems than on electron beam systems. The surface where supports
are removed is rough and will likely need more finishing. If a surface needs
a machined tolerance, it can be advantageous to make this the supported
surface to minimize finishing time on all other surfaces.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Successful builds depend upon effective supports, the orientation and

location of parts on the build platform, and the number of parts built at a
time. Also, success with one alloy does not guarantee success with another.
It is critical to have a degree of familiarity with each alloy and process
being used.
Metal AM aorta pendants attached to a

build plate, courtesy of Renishaw
Once a build is complete, loose metal powder is removed and often reused.
It is normally straightforward to remove the powder, but any loose
material not removed will likely become permanently attached or trapped
inside the parts. This could potentially make the parts unusable.
Amorphous metal part about to be removed from

powder bed, courtesy of Heraeus
For electron-beam PBF processes, the powder surrounding the part is

partially sintered. Abrasive blasting is used to remove the powder and
expose the parts. The media used to break up the material around the
parts is usually the same powder used to build the parts. Most of the loose
powder in the blasting cabinet can be reused. Removing excess material
from internal cavities of electron-beam PBF parts can be substantially
more difficult than with laser PBF systems because the powder is often
partially sintered. This should be considered at the design phase.
Directed energy deposition (DED) and cold spray technologies generally

require post-machining to achieve critical dimensions and features. The
water-cooling part in the following image has a mass of 0.58 kg (1.27 lbs)
and was printed in 6061 aluminum in 40 minutes on a cold spray system
from SPEE3D. It required additional time for milling and assembly.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Automotive water-cooling part printed in 6061 aluminum

and machined, courtesy of SPEE3D
To maximize printer efficiency, some types of parts can be stacked

vertically into batches. If done well, the increased support structures used
to build the stacked batch is offset by the more efficient use of print time.
The build time can be the most expensive part of the production process.
Betatype reduced the cost of a heatsink for an LED automotive headlight,
shown in the following image, from more than $40 to less than $4 by
stacking parts. A single build can fit 384 heatsinks.
`
Heatsinks for LED headlight stacked in a build
chamber, courtesy of Betatype
Thermal processing After metal AM parts are cleaned and all excess material is removed, they
are usually stress-relieved to prevent warping. This usually occurs with
metal parts
the parts and supports still attached to the build plate. Hot isostatic
pressing (HIP) may be required, depending on the part’s application.
Another thermal processing step is solution heat treating and
precipitation hardening to strengthen, harden, and/or improve
homogeneity of the material. Thermal processing almost always changes
the microstructure of the part and provides different mechanical
properties compared to as-built parts.
With metal AM, residual stress is unavoidable. Metal PBF may be

considered as microwelding. The residual stresses are the result of the
rapid heating and cooling of the small melt pool surrounded by solid metal.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Each layer is created by moving the laser or electron beam across the bed
and melting the top layer of powder. This fuses it to the layer below. Heat
flows from the melt pool into the solid metal below, helping the molten
metal cool and solidify. The laser or electron beam spot is extremely small,
so cooling and solidification happens in a matter of microseconds. The melt
pool solidifies and contracts as it cools in the solid state. This contraction is
greater than that of the cooler underlying material, resulting in residual
stress. This stress over hundreds or thousands of layers can be sufficiently
widespread and can be substantial enough to bend a build plate.
Stress relief involves slowly ramping up the heat several hundred degrees
and holding at a prescribed temperature. Parts remain in the furnace for
several hours, annealing the material and relieving internal stresses. The
total length of time depends on the design and mass of the part. It is
important that all sections of a part reach the same temperature. The parts
should cool down slowly in the furnace to about 300°C (572°F), then finish
cooling in an ambient environment.
HIP is a treatment that uses high pressure and heat to remove porosity and
microcracks. Inert gas, such as argon, is used to prevent chemical reactions
with the material. HIP post-processing is common for safety-critical metal
AM parts for applications in aerospace and biomedical fields. After HIP,
parts can exhibit mechanical properties equivalent to wrought material
properties. Companies such as Quintus Technologies have developed
furnaces that combine stress relief, HIP, solution heat treatment, and aging.
For metal BJT, as-printed parts are in a green state and must be sintered to
reach near-full density. The sintering process has been pioneered by the
metal injection-molding and powder-metallurgy industries, but it is
applied to AM differently. First, the anisotropy inherent in AM’s layer-by-
layer process can produce uneven contraction across a part. If the process
is not very carefully controlled, small inconsistencies in the green part
magnify during sintering. This can cause dimensional scatter and out-of-
specification final parts.
Metal AM parts undergoing sintering,

courtesy of Desktop Metal
Metal support Support material removal for metal parts can be difficult, expensive, and
time consuming. Consequently, it is important to design metal parts for
material removal
AM to minimize the need for support structures.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
CAD model of pen stands showing the support

material (brown), courtesy of Simon Chan
Parts and the support structures are initially welded to the build plate.
After thermal stress relief, the first step is to remove the parts and support
structures from the build plate. This is generally done with electrical
discharge machining, a bandsaw, or multitool.
Aluminum pen stand being removed from build plate using a multitool
Often, support material is removed manually using a combination of

tearing, cutting and grinding using pliers, hammers, and other tools.
Considerable force is sometimes required to break away the support
material.
Support material being removed manually from AM parts
After the support material has been removed, the part surface can be
treated by shot peening, media blasting, grinding, polishing, and/or
machining.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Pen stand after filing and bead blasting
The following table shows the time required for each pre- and post-
processing step required to produce one complete aluminum pen stand,
shown in the preceding example. The parts were not heat treated, which
would add about eight hours to the process.
Task Time
(hrs:min)
File preparation 0:45
Machine preparation 1:00
Printing* 2:40
Machine cleaning 1:00
Removal from build plate 0:05
Support removal 0:30
Filing, sanding, shot peening 0:20
Polishing (optional) 1:30
* Print time per part if 13 parts are included
in the build. If one part is printed, the build
time is 7 hours and 53 minutes.
Due to the costly hands-on nature of post-processing and support removal,

companies are investing time and money to develop better approaches.
Rena Technologies has commercialized the Hirtisation process, an
electrochemical washing process to dissolve metal supports while
smoothing the surfaces of parts.
Metal surface treatment All metal AM parts have some measure of surface roughness. It is
determined by the AM process, feedstock particle size, layer thickness,
build orientation, and the presence of supports. It can be difficult to
determine the surface roughness before a part is built. This is because
the finish of top, bottom, angled, and vertical surfaces can differ
substantially.
Laser PBF processes commonly produce as-built surfaces of about 7.6–

15.2 µm (300–600 µin) roughness average (Ra) on the top-facing and
vertical surfaces. With GE Additive’s electron beam process, the surface
finish can be 20.3–25.4 µm (800–1,000 µin) Ra for top and vertical
surfaces. Down-facing surfaces, and surfaces where support material is
attached, are often substantially rougher and can have 1,000 µm (0.04 in)
Ra or worse.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
A variety of processes can reduce surface roughness of metal AM parts.

Some involve mechanical action (e.g., machining, shot peening, and
tumbling), while others involve chemicals, often combined with
mechanical action (e.g., electropolishing). Each method should be
evaluated based on how well it works, how much material it removes, the
cost, and the level of finish required.
Aluminum pen-stand after high-speed centrifugal isotropic

finishing on a Mass Finishing HZ-40 system
Most metal AM parts are media blasted, usually with sand or glass beads,
as the first post-processing step after the support material is removed.
This process helps to remove any residual powder that is still attached.
Shot peening is similar to sand blasting but typically uses small steel ball
bearings or other media. Whereas sand blasting is an abrasive process that
removes material from the surface, shot peening is a microhammering
process that flattens tiny peaks on the part surface. It has a forging effect
on the part that both smooths and hardens the surface.
Plasma cleaning is a process for removing material from the part surface
using an ionized gas, called plasma. It is generally performed in a vacuum
chamber. The plasma is created using high-frequency voltage to ionize the
low-pressure gas (typically around 1/1,000 atmospheric pressure),
although atmospheric pressure plasmas are also common.
Gas nitriding is a thermochemical case-hardening process for ferrous

materials used to increase wear resistance, surface hardness, and fatigue
life. It is a low-distortion treatment in which nitrogen gas is absorbed into
the surface of a part and transformed into a nitride compound. The process
temperature is typically around 520°C (970°F).
With metal AM, the down-facing part surface, and any area that contacts
support material, is usually rough. The top surfaces can also have patterns
left behind by different laser-hatching strategies. These surfaces are
improved by grinding or machining.
Machining an AM part is no different from machining any other metal part.

When areas of a part are known to require machining, it is often necessary
to add extra material to the CAD model. Typically, 0.5 mm (0.02 in) of extra
material is sufficient.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Often, mounting complex AM parts in a CNC machine can take longer than
the machining time. Therefore, fixtures and mounting points can be added
to a part design to facilitate mounting. A convenient practice is to make the
area that must be machined the down-facing surface that contacts the
support structure, although this is not always possible.
Mounting fixture designed into the part for CNC machining
Micromachining combines a chemical reaction at the surface of the

material with a removal process driven by fluid flow. Mirror-like surfaces
are possible. Micromachining has been limited mostly to metal
applications because of its expense, but it can also be applied to plastic
parts. The process requires a custom setup depending on the features of a
part. It is best used for large numbers of identical or similar parts, or parts
of high value.
Turbine blade before (left) and after (right) micromachining,

courtesy of MicroTek Finishing
Finishing the surfaces of internal channels and cavities can be challenging.

One option is abrasive flow machining, a technique of smoothing and
polishing by pumping an abrasive paste through internal channels. The
abrasive particles in the media smooth the internal surfaces. One of the
most established processes is from Extrude Hone.
Anodizing is used to produce protective and decorative oxide layers and

works well with aluminum parts. Hanging points for suspension in the
anodizing bath may be designed into the AM part.
Plasma spraying is a thermal coating process used to apply almost any

metal or ceramic onto a part’s surface. It can improve resistance to
corrosion, wear, heat, and oxidation. It can also be used for thermal
management and electrical resistivity/conductivity. Similar benefits are
possible with electroplating, powder coating, and painting.
Automation Post-processing can represent up to 40% of the total cost to produce an

AM part. To keep costly AM machines printing nearly continuously,
several companies have developed automated build chamber transport
robots. EOS partnered with industrial robot builder Grenzebach to
integrate automated guided vehicles (AGV).

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Inert PBF build chamber carried by an AGV,

courtesy of EOS and Grenzebach
Solukon and other companies have produced systems to automate the

metal-powder removal process. This can save time compared to manual
processing of parts with complex internal channels. The Solukon systems
can vibrate and rotate a part to remove powder from internal channels
based on the CAD design.
Metal part undergoing automated depowdering,

courtesy of Solukon
Creating a high-quality surface finish for metal AM parts can be time

intensive and not always necessary, depending on the application. Mass
Finishing has automated the process using high-speed centrifugal isotropic
finishing.
For polymer PBF, companies are also automating powder removal and
surface finishing. The Powershot line of systems from DyeMansion are
designed to clean and smooth the surfaces of parts. Cycle times can be less
than 10 minutes, although total time depends on the types of parts being
processed.
Polymer PBF part before Powershot (left) and

after (right), courtesy of DyeMansion

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
DyeMansion and other companies are also automating vapor smoothing

and dyeing of polymer parts. These automated solutions improve AM
workflow and throughput.
Polymer PBF part after Powershot (left) and after vapor smoothing
and dyeing (right), courtesy of DyeMansion
AM part inspection Part inspection is an important step in the AM value chain. Two primary
by Alex Doukas approaches are non-destructive testing (NDT) and destructive testing.
NDT is often a more appealing option, since parts are not destroyed to
obtain data. Frequently used methods for data acquisition include
coordinate measuring machines (CMMs), CT scanning, structured light
scanning, and laser scanning. Each method has benefits and limitations.
Depending on the part’s geometric complexity, multiple methods may be
needed for complete inspection.
CMMs offer high accuracy and repeatable data acquisition to assess

exterior features. The technique uses either a manual or automated
contact probe. This technology requires surface contact and fixturing,
which can damage fragile parts. Some versions of CMMs include a non-
contact optical scanning head in place of a contact probe.
Non-contact methods to inspect exterior features include structured light

and laser scanning, which is more popular. Both techniques employ
triangulation methods using a light source and a camera or sensor. With
structured light, a line or pattern of light is projected onto the surface. The
line remains straight from the viewpoint of the light source. However, from
the vantage point of the camera, the line is distorted, detecting the
topography of the part. Laser scanning uses a laser to project a spot or line
onto the surface of a part. Using triangulation, a sensor detects the distance
to a projected line or spot.
An example of a laser scanning system actively

capturing data, courtesy of Carolina Metrology

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Structured light and laser scanning systems can capture millions of data
points accurately and quickly. The data can be analyzed to obtain critical
dimensions, which can be compared to the part’s designed dimensions.
These scanning processes use line-of-sight data acquisition, which makes
them impractical to inspect some geometric features, such as undercuts,
deep pockets, and holes. Both non-contact scanning techniques may
require additional post-processing to reduce the effects of reflections.
Polymer and metal parts with a matte finish are most suitable for these
inspection techniques.
Fluorescent penetrant inspection is another method used to inspect metal

AM parts. A dye is applied to the exterior of a part, which highlights surface
anomalies and/or layer separation. This method cannot inspect interior
features.
Some methods, including radiography and CT scanning, are useful to

inspect both exterior and interior structures. Radiographic X-ray
inspection can be used for quick qualification of interior structures. It is
also used for verification of internal features. Radiography is a quick and
efficient way to capture geometric features and typically requires only a
few seconds to gather data.
CT scanning is a method of NDT in which a 3D dataset is created by

combining a series of 2D X-rays. CT is used to inspect the entire part. High-
power CT systems are used for dense metal parts. The following images
show two 3D-printed test coupons. They have been inspected using
industrial CT to probe internal feature accuracy.
3D rendering of CT data of a tensile bar (bottom) with a cross

section through the volume (top), courtesy of Kinetic Vision
A benefit of CT inspection is capturing volumetric features. Results can be

used for evaluating dimensional accuracy, porosity, microcracking, layer
structure, delamination, and material distribution. CT is an excellent
method for part inspection, but issues with cost, time, and accessibility
result in less frequent use in production environments.
Internal structures of AM parts validated using industrial

CT scanning, courtesy of KineticVision
Each inspection method has specific benefits and tradeoffs. The method
should be chosen on a case-by-case basis depending on several factors.
They include the required accuracy, the need to inspect internal volumes
and/or features, material properties, time, and cost. Inspection methods
and techniques are constantly improving to meet the needs of the AM
market.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Costs and The benefits described near the beginning of this part justify the use of
AM for series production by increasing product value. However,
challenges challenges associated with AM can often nullify these benefits if not
managed properly.
Operating costs Two primary expenses are machine time and materials. Most AM machines
suitable for final part production are expensive to purchase, operate, and
maintain. The machine depreciation usually spans several years and is
divided among all parts built in that time interval.
The high cost of AM machines can be attributed mainly to the relatively

small number being sold. The vendors also need to recuperate
development costs. If machines were produced and sold in much larger
volumes, the unit price would certainly decline. This has been the case
with desktop AM systems being produced in China. The AM industry is
experiencing increased competition, which favorably impacts product
pricing for customers.
Some AM materials are expensive because they are costly to produce.

Production volumes are also relatively low compared to materials for
conventional manufacturing. However, thermoplastics used in MEX are
commonly used in the injection-molding industry and should be relatively
inexpensive. Even so, AM suppliers price MEX filaments many times higher
than injection-molding pellets. In this case, the cost to the customer is
believed to be artificially inflated.
AM system manufacturers often incentivize customers to use their

materials exclusively. They may use warranties and software lockouts to
discourage using competing materials. Material costs will fall when true
competitive market conditions and economies of scale are realized.
Cost justification A key to success with AM is comprehensive and realistic cost justification.
When a simple one-to-one cost comparison between AM and conventional
processes is made, the range of products for which AM is suited is small. A
business case for AM will likely fail if it relies solely on this approach.
Instead, the broader product life cycle and total manufacturing cost should
be considered.
AM may be cost-justified if the part must be put into service quickly. A

commercial airplane, train, or drilling rig that is out of service for a week
could incur substantial dollars in lost revenue. In some instances, a
$10,000 AM part can be justified if equipment returns to full service
quickly. For this reason, some companies are developing part databases
and production workflows to support on-demand spare part production.
These databases are not easy to create, nor maintain. They require
significant upfront cost and time, and the database entries must be
thoroughly vetted to ensure safety and quality.
Deployment of an airplane part that costs $1,000 using AM compared to a

$500 casting may not be justified initially. However, if its weight is reduced
by 25%, resulting in savings of $2,000 over 10 years of operation, a
business case can be made. Similar arguments are possible for
improvements in product performance, greater customer satisfaction,
reduced product maintenance, and a reduction in total manufacturing
costs.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Machine throughput Another way to reduce the cost of AM parts is to increase machine
throughput. Machine depreciation cost can be spread over a larger number
of parts. Throughput can be increased with faster operating speeds, larger
build volumes, optimized part packing in build chambers, and automated
loading and unloading of parts. Many metal PBF system manufacturers
provide machines with multiple lasers to speed the build process. Among
them are Additive Industries, EOS, GE Additive, SLM Solutions, and
Trumpf.
A different approach to improving throughput is to use continuous

production techniques. Creality’s 3DPrintMill and the Blackbelt 3D printer
demonstrate how parts can be built continuously using a conveyor belt.
These machines can run nearly non-stop and build extremely long parts.
Surfboard printed using recycled plastics on a conveyor-based

MEX system, courtesy of Trash Peak and Blackbelt 3D
Metal part production Metal part production using AM presents challenges and is typically costly.
cost considerations The build is one step in a multi-stage workflow that requires both proper
equipment and experience.
Metal AM machines range from about $65,000 for a small, basic

configuration to more than $2 million for one that can produce large parts.
AM metal system prices and options are extensive. Increased competition
is beginning to force prices downward somewhat.
Metal AM workflow can consist of more than 10 steps, including heat

treatment and CNC machining. Many of these steps require ancillary
equipment and experienced employees. The following table provides a list
of processing equipment and estimated price ranges.
Equipment Estimated price

Metal and polymer PBF
Explosion-proof vacuum cleaner $2,000–30,000
Powder sieving system $5,000–30,000
Shot peening and/or sand blasting (manual or automated) $5,000–100,000
Polymer PBF
Powder mixing system $5,000–30,000

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Equipment Estimated price

Metal PBF
Inert gas (typically argon or nitrogen) $12,000 per year
Furnace for heat treatment $5,000–100,000
Polishing systems $1,000–60,000
Bandsaw, wire EDM, multitool $500–200,000
CNC machining center $20,000–100,000
Class D fire extinguisher $1,000
Metal BJT and MEX
Chemical or thermal debinding system $50,000–150,000
Furnace for sintering $50,000–150,000
Furnace for heat treatment $5,000–100,000
Polishing systems $1,000–60,000
CNC machining center $20,000–100,000
Powder sieving system $5,000–30,000
MJT, MEX, and VPP
Isopropyl alcohol cleaning system $50–50,000
Ultrasonic cleaner for wax support removal $500–20,000
UV curing chamber $3,000–30,000
Vapor smoothing $5,000–300,000
Other equipment and supplies include:
▪ Special powder storage, particularly for reactive powders

▪ Part quality analysis systems (e.g., equipment for testing hardness,
tension, and surface roughness)
▪ Power infrastructure and metering, three-phase and single-phase
electricity
▪ Air compressor required for majority of systems
▪ Safety control, gas sensors, and disabling sprinkler systems
▪ Climate control
▪ PPE
▪ Hand tools
Sieving equipment for powder recycling is an important part of a metal AM

system. Some machine manufacturers bundle it with the price of the
machine, while others do not. It is important to understand what is
included with the machine. Knowledge of the AM process steps and
“hidden” costs helps ensure a system transaction takes place smoothly for
both the buyer and seller.
AMPro sieve station,

courtesy of Russell Finex

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Most metal PBF systems operate in an inert atmosphere to reduce the

possibility of contamination from oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air.
Argon gas, nitrogen gas, a vacuum, or a combination is used to eliminate
unwanted gases. The cost of argon gas can exceed $12,000 per year to
support one metal AM machine. The actual cost depends on local gas
prices, the way in which the AM machine is used, and the size and
throughput of the machine. If nitrogen is used, the gas can be obtained
either from gas bottles or from a nitrogen generator.
Inert gas containment enclosure at the University of Auckland
Safety considerations Metal PBF systems require several safety considerations. One concern is
the safe use of reactive powders, such as titanium and aluminum. Both can
ignite, burn, and even explode under certain conditions. It is important to
take special safety precautions when using these types of powders. A class
D fire extinguisher is required, at minimum. Storage of powders, especially
in large quantities, comes with special requirements that can be expensive.
PPE is required to protect an operator from exposure to metal powders. It

can range from a few hundred dollars for gloves and face masks to
thousands for full-body suits with built-in air filtration. Some metal PBF
systems come with built-in powder management systems to reduce
contact with powder. Aftermarket powder management systems are also
available from several suppliers.
PPE for metal PBF, courtesy of Materialise
Facility considerations Metal PBF systems operate optimally when the ambient temperature and
humidity are maintained at levels recommended by the machine
manufacturer. Air conditioners, humidifiers, or dehumidifiers are usually
necessary. Initial cost can be in the range of $10,000, but this can vary
greatly depending on the size of the room where the machine is installed.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
A building may require alterations to accommodate a metal AM system. In

some cases, doorways may need to be widened or walls removed so the
machine can be moved into place. Proper ventilation is necessary to reduce
hazards associated with fine powders becoming airborne. Machine weight
is another consideration because it impacts machine placement and
maintenance access.
New gas lines and electrical capacity are often required when installing a
metal PBF system. For reactive metal powder, a sprinkler-based fire
extinguishing system should be disabled because metal powder can react
dangerously to water. It may be advisable to install sensors to detect the
level of gases, such as oxygen, in the air. If an argon gas leak occurs, it could
quickly cause asphyxiation, particularly if the room is small.
Additional equipment An industrial air compressor is often required and can cost $30,000. A
sandblaster is needed to remove powder attached to parts and can cost
about $12,000. A shot-peening cabinet, which can cost $15,000, is useful
for improving the surface finish of parts. Industrial vacuum cleaners are
also required and can cost $19,000. It is very important that they are
intrinsically safe and can be used with reactive powders.
A heat treatment furnace will cost $15,000–30,000, and one used for
titanium can cost $100,000. Equipment is needed for removing parts from
the build plate, such as a bandsaw ($10,000–25,000) or a wire EDM system
($50,000–200,000). Electricity can cost $3,000 or more annually,
depending on local pricing and the amount used.
When HIP is necessary for metal parts, it is usually outsourced, but it

should be budgeted for aerospace and certain other types of structural
parts. HIP systems can cost $1.5–3 million. Software licensing fees can be
$3,000 annually, but they too can vary widely, depending on the software
purchased.
Annual maintenance contracts for an AM machine can range from $10,000

to more than $30,000, depending on the level of service. Maintenance
contracts extend the warranty beyond the first year of ownership. The cost
of filters for a metal PBF machine can be $30 each, but they can go as high
as nearly $7,000. Other consumables include build plates, recoater blade
wipers, and lasers.
Carefully considering all costs associated with metal AM part production is

critical to successful implementation in a profitable endeavor. When
considering the purchase of an AM machine, talk with a few customers to
better understand the real costs involved.
Qualification and quality Rigorous and consistent production quality control is critical in certain
industries. This is most notable in aerospace and healthcare. These
industries are highly regulated, and the qualification of new processes and
materials can be time consuming, complex, and expensive. AM parts must
satisfy the same regulatory standards for acceptance as conventionally
manufactured parts. Regulations and standards, if they exist, often dictate
the level of defects, material properties, traceability, and process
certification that new solutions must meet. In this case, AM technologies
do not necessarily suffer from an absence of capability, but from a lack of
consistency and an insufficient body of supporting data.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AM can create high-quality parts, but repeatability and reliability issues

remain. A lack of process monitoring and control is partly the cause. To
address these and other issues, an international effort to develop
standards for AM has been underway since 2009 by ASTM International
and since 2011 by ISO. The primary standards development committees
are ASTM Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies and
ISO/TC 261 on Additive Manufacturing. For details on how to inspect
parts, see the section titled “AM part inspection” within this part of the
report. For details on industry standards, see the section titled “AM
standards” in Part 6.
Educating designers People must think in a different way when designing for AM. They can
concentrate more on functionality and less on manufacturability.
Education can be addressed through guidelines, courses, and hands-on
learning.
Individuals and organizations have tried to create comprehensive AM

design guidelines, but it is difficult to cover all available AM materials and
processes. System manufacturers and service providers have created
guidelines for specific processes. Olaf Diegel has documented many
guidelines in his book titled A Practical Guide to Design for Additive
Manufacturing. An ASTM/ISO working group is in the final stages of
producing a standard guide on designing for AM.
Wohlers Associates has produced its own version of DfAM guidelines for
its training and hands-on learning. Olaf Diegel, lead instructor of the
courses, stresses repeatedly that guidelines can only help form an intuition
for design and will never replace hands-on practice.
Instructor Olaf Diegel presenting at a Wohlers Associates’

DfAM course he is leading in Frisco, Colorado
DfAM education can occur at many levels, starting at ages 12–15, through
university students and on-the-job training. The earlier DfAM is introduced
to a designer, the better. Experienced designers know how to make
products look and work, and most will understand the benefits that AM
offers.
A shortage of DfAM educational and training resources worldwide is

apparent. In response to this, Wohlers Associates began running DfAM
courses in 2015 for NASA and other organizations. The three-day DfAM
courses are tailored to the specific needs of the group. As of February
2022, the company had conducted multi-day DfAM courses in Australia,
Belgium, Canada, Germany, South Africa, and the U.S.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Scaling AM into Many companies are moving toward the production of final products
made by AM. Scaling AM from prototyping to series production typically
production requires changes and upgrades to methods and tools. Among them are
by Doug Collins and Greg Morris software, post-processing, maintenance, quality control, finishing
capabilities, and staff training.
Production systems Scaling AM to production volumes can be difficult, although it does not
inherently require purchasing more machines. Throughput can be
increased with more efficient use of existing systems. Some AM processes
are better suited to series production than others.
For polymers, PBF systems can nest parts in 3D space because the
surrounding loose powder serves as support material. Many parts can be
printed in a single build, which can result in increased productivity. Care
must be taken in full-chamber builds to avoid running out of powder near
the end of the build. This occurs when an insufficient amount of powder is
transferred to the powder bed as layers are spread. Some PBF systems
increase output by printing a full-width layer in a single pass. For laser-
based PBF systems, multiple lasers result in faster build times.
Part nesting using Fabpilot software,

courtesy of Sculpteo
AM processes use different methods to increase production rate. DLP-

based systems arrange the most parts possible on a build platform. Unlike
PBF, they typically do not nest parts vertically, as shown in the previous
image. This is because the additional support material can become nearly
impossible to remove after the build is complete. Manufacturers of DLP
systems are introducing products with larger build volumes to
accommodate more parts per build. Multiple lasers are used with large
VPP systems to increase speed and throughput.
For MEX, print farms of many machines can run to reach series production
rates. This approach is also used with VPP and PBF systems. MEX printers
have been developed with large build chambers and multiple print heads
to increase throughput.
As with polymer processes, the focus of metal AM systems has been on

increased build platform size coupled with high-energy deposition. This
has been achieved through higher power and/or multiple energy sources.
For example, instead of having one or two lasers, PBF systems will have
four or more high-powered lasers. The result is faster scan times for each
layer and faster throughput.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Some AM system manufacturers have integrated automation into their

equipment to maximize the productive build times of their machines. For
example, a modular build platform may be removed automatically from the
machine and quickly replaced with another. Some of these systems include
central powder handling and automated sieving and mixing of new and
used material. This streamlines labor-intensive effort and improves
operator safety.
Automated build platform changing, courtesy of 3D Systems
Software Nesting algorithms and MES software are critical for scaling AM to
production. Nesting algorithms help arrange parts digitally in 3D space
before printing. Part orientation is selected based on consideration of
surface finish, tolerance, and material properties.
MES software tracks parts from the initial quote to delivery. This includes
build planning and control, machine monitoring, error tracking, post-
processing, and quality control. These software tools become essential as
production quantities increase. The tools track materials, parts, and
capacity, which can improve quality and foster better communication with
customers.
Staff and maintenance Experienced staff can make a difference in the quality of parts, customer
service, and support. Labor-intensive aspects of the AM process include
pre-production (e.g., nesting parts and production scheduling), printer
operations, post-processing, and quality control. Equipment is typically
operated at the highest capacity possible for series production. Both
preventative maintenance and rapid equipment repair require skilled
staff to prevent significant downtime.
Companies are advised to invest in quality training to ensure a high level of

knowledge and skill for equipment operators. This includes in-depth
training on part location and orientation to optimize mechanical
properties and surface finish. Minimizing the need for support material is
another important factor. These skills take time to master and are critical
for a smooth and profitable operation.
Engineers and technicians can receive machine maintenance and repair

training from most equipment manufacturers. It is important for
production teams to maintain a close working relationship with the
equipment manufacturer’s service department. Rapid access to spare parts
is essential to scale AM production to minimize machine downtime.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Post-processing Post-processing typically requires more manual labor than any other part
of the AM process chain. Companies offer automated equipment that can
greatly reduce the time and labor needed for post-processing.
Depending on the final application, each AM process requires one or more

post-processing steps. Support material must be removed, and parts are
typically cleaned, cured, and/or depowdered. For parts made by MEX,
automated systems help with the removal of soluble support structures.
Parts made by PBF benefit from automated bead blasting systems and
tumblers to remove unfused powder and improve the surface finish.
Post-processing of metal AM parts usually requires some machining to

achieve specific tolerances or surface finishes. Currently, the vast majority
of metal AM parts are created using laser or electron-beam PBF processes,
although BJT is gaining traction. With PBF, support structures made from
the same material as the parts being built. In a production environment,
support removal will likely require some form of machining.
Another factor to consider when working with metals is thermal post-

processing of parts. Stress relieving while parts are still on the build
platform is necessary for PBF builds, while BJT parts require a post-
process sintering operation. After thermal post-processing, PBF parts are
removed from the platform using wire EDM, bandsawing, or another form
of cutting. Options are often available to automate these activities. Some
metal parts require heat treatment to produce acceptable microstructure
and service properties.
Finishing Production parts may require extensive finishing, which adds significant
value. However, finishing can be labor intensive and expensive.
Some parts require threaded inserts or assembly with other parts to create
subassemblies or finished products. Dyeing can be used to add color to
polymer PBF parts and can be partially automated to reduce labor. Coating
is a finishing technique in which parts are sprayed in a paint booth by
skilled staff. Coatings add color, scratch resistance, UV protection,
electrostatic discharge protection, and a desired sheen.
Any surface of an AM part that has not been machined or otherwise post-
processed will likely have some degree of stair-stepping on the surface.
Finishing these surfaces is often required either to improve part aesthetics
or, in some instances, mechanical properties. Reducing surface roughness
can improve fatigue properties and eliminate potential flow obstructions.
Stainless steel AM part before surface finishing (right)

and after (left), courtesy of Fintek
Quality control Quality control (QC) becomes a much larger and more involved task
when scaling to manufacturing quantities. It is important to control
dimensional accuracy, printing defects, support and powder removal,

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
part cleaning, and mechanical properties. Special tools are often required
for QC. They include metrology equipment, 3D scanners, mechanical
testers, and a range of measurement tools to check dimensions and
tolerances.
Specialized equipment is needed to monitor feedstock quality. For

example, a metal powder particle size analyzer will confirm the size, shape,
and distribution of powder particles. Measuring these parameters is
critical to consistently producing quality AM parts. Material control
procedures and tracking software for different batches of incoming
material document important aspects of the feedstock for proper handling
and QC.
Some AM production systems integrate QC checks into the printing

process. Examples are in-process thermal imaging, parameter checking,
and adjustments during the build.
Process monitoring is important with PBF, courtesy of Fraunhofer ILT
Industry certifications play an important role for scaling AM to production

levels. Many industries and customers require ISO 9001 certification,
which ensures a quality management system. It aims to enhance business
processes and provides a framework for on-going process improvement.
Some industries require specific certifications. For example, ISO 13485 is

required for medical device manufacturing and AS 9001 is needed for
aerospace part production. Implementing these certifications requires
significant time, training, and investment. Maintaining certifications
requires a commitment from the entire organization.
It is sometimes necessary to qualify each machine prior to producing parts

for highly regulated industrial applications. Typically, qualifications are
performed for the installation, operation, and performance of these
systems. Four months of effort may be required to qualify a machine for
production, depending on the extent of the qualification tests. Once
qualified, a standardized plan is used to maintain consistent performance.
The plan typically includes regular quality checks and machine monitoring.
ASTM International and ISO have partnered to create standards

specifically for AM. The ASTM F42 and ISO/TC 261 committees have
collaborated for years to develop and support standards to promote the
adoption of AM. As AM continues to expand into the production of end-use
parts, standards will drive market acceptance by providing guidance,
consistency, reliability, and safety.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Part 5: Global Reports
Part 5: Global Reports

An estimated 34.8% of all industrial additive manufacturing (AM) systems
installed worldwide are in North America. Research by Wohlers Associates
shows that 30.0% of all industrial systems are installed in the Asia/Pacific
region. Meanwhile, 29.8% are in Europe, with the remaining 5.4% installed
in Central America, South America, the Middle East, and Africa.
Installations The following graph estimates, by percentage, the number of industrial

AM systems installed by country. The estimates are cumulative totals
by country from the technology’s inception through 2021. Used system sales have
been excluded from the estimates so machines are not counted more
than once.
The U.S. continues to serve as home to more than three times the number
of industrial AM systems than any other country. China, Japan, and
Germany have the next largest installation base of machines.
Many AM system manufacturers and service providers worldwide

provided the data used to produce the previous charts. This information,
coupled with data from third-party material producers, manufacturers of

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
desktop 3D printers, and others, was used to complete other sections of

this report. This information represents 27 years of collecting and
analyzing data, which is unique to the AM industry. No other organization
in the world has access to this breadth and depth of data and market
intelligence on AM. It is used to track industry growth, provide historical
perspective, uncover trends, and offer insight into the future of this
exciting industry.
Asia/Pacific The following chart shows the cumulative distribution of industrial AM

systems in the Asia/Pacific region through the end of 2021. Nearly two-
thirds of the systems (65.1%) are in China and Japan. The “Other”
segment includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar
(formerly Burma), Nepal, New Caledonia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and
Vietnam.
Except for Japan, the adoption of AM in Asia began much later than in the
U.S. and Europe. Companies in Asia were mostly experimenting with the
technology in the late 1990s. Most early machine installations in Asia were
at technology transfer centers, universities, and training centers. In recent
years, the use of AM has progressed rapidly in Asia, especially in China,
Japan, Korea, and Singapore.
China AM development continued at a rapid pace in 2021. The Nanjixiong 3D

by Feng Lin Printing network reported 30 major investments valued at $625 million.
3D-printed medicine company Triastek and AM service provider Wenext
each received investments of more than $62.5 million.
According to China Customs Statistics, 2.88 million 3D printers were

produced in China in 2021. This was a 13.3% increase over 2020. Most of
them are low-cost desktop machines with an average sale price of $200.
The China Additive Manufacturing Industry Yearbook 2020—the first

annual report on AM in China—was published in March 2021. The
yearbook was compiled by the Additive Manufacturing Alliance of China
and includes information from more than 70 companies and research
teams. Total revenue from the Chinese AM industry in 2020 was reported
to be $2 billion.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In 2021, leading AM companies in China launched large-scale laser powder

bed fusion (PBF) systems with eight or 10 lasers. They included Farsoon,
Bright Laser Technologies, Eplus 3D, and Jiangsu Yongnian Laser Forming
Technology.
QuickBeam, founded in 2015, has developed a prototype of a large-scale

electron-beam PBF machine. The system has a scanning area of 430 x 430
mm (16.9 x 16.9 in) with four electron emitters. The company sells the
QBeamAero350, another large electron-beam PBF system. It has a build
volume of 350 x 350 x 700 mm (13.8 x 13.8 x 27.6 in) and contains one 6-
kilowatt electron emitter.
Titanium part made on QBeamAero350 electron-

beam PBF system, courtesy of QuickBeam
India The pandemic caused an economic slowdown in India in 2021 but also
by Mukesh Agarwala provided new opportunities for entrepreneurs in the AM industry. Many
innovative AM activities were initiated on short notice in response to the
pandemic. Several AM systems from Indian manufacturers were
announced.
Intech Additive Solutions began offering the iFusion LF large-scale metal

PBF system. Ace Micromatic Group, one of India’s leading computer
numerical control (CNC) and machine tool manufacturers, launched the
STLR 400 laser-based metal PBF system. It features two 1-kilowatt lasers
and a build volume of 410 x 410 x 450 mm (16.1 x 16.1 x 17.7 in). The
company also launched the smaller STLR 180 system with a single 400-
watt laser and a circular build volume of 180 mm (7.1 in) in diameter.
Another leading Indian machine tool manufacturer, Bharat Fritz Werner,
announced a directed energy deposition (DED) system in partnership with
Meltio of Spain.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
STLR 400 laser PBF system from Ace

Micromatic Group, courtesy of Amace
The Sahajanand Group, pioneers of laser processing for the diamond and
medical industries, introduced four vat photopolymerization (VPP)
systems, the INSL 300, 600, 800, and 1100. Several Indian companies
launched desktop 3D printers using digital light processing (DLP)
technology in 2021, including 3Dware. Indo-MIM, a leading metal
injection-molding company, started supplying steel, Inconel, and titanium
powders specifically made for PBF technologies.
Intech Additive Solutions was the first domestic company to enter the PBF-
system market in India and has benefitted from government support. As a
result, the company has successfully sold many of its iFusion SF systems to
educational institutions and government-sponsored organizations. At
Formnext 2021, Intech made its first overseas sale to a customer in Greece.
Production of high-quality AM systems in the country will advance India’s
goal of becoming a major international AM player.
AM has historically been used in India for prototyping applications. In

2021, some users began to apply AM to produce end-use parts. This
development is being led by innovative startups in sectors including
electric vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), green energy, and the
space industry. Two space-application startups are Skyroot Aerospace and
AgniKul Cosmos. These companies have integrated AM into their
operations and have successfully tested 3D-printed engines.
3D-printed eyewear from Stones 3D Eyewear became available at optical

stores in India in 2021. 3D Product Development, a leading AM service
provider, is using PBF and DLP-based VPP for the production of end-use
parts for healthcare products. Startup company Toothsi is offering a
transparent dental aligner service based on 3D printing technology.
Startup company ideaForge Technology has begun producing AM drone
parts in response to the Indian government relaxing its drone deployment
policy.
As part of the National Roadmap for AM, the Indian government is

establishing a National Center for AM in Hyderabad. The center will act as
a catalyst for networking among AM stakeholders and accelerate the
development of AM technology in India.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Japan The AM market in Japan has been growing slowly but steadily. The
by Hideaki Oba medals ceremony podium for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics
was 3D printed on a material extrusion (MEX) system that uses plastic
pellets as feedstock. The plastic was mainly recycled soap and detergent
bottles collected by Procter & Gamble. The project was an industry-
academia-government collaboration led by Hiroya Tanaka of Keio
University. The university aims to promote recycling using digital
technologies, including 3D printing. The podium project was adopted as a
COI-NEXT program by the Japan Science and Technology Agency.
2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics podium, courtesy of Tokyo2020
The Gunma Additive Manufacturing Platform (GAM) is an industrial

consortium launched in July 2021. It is led by the Kyowa Sangyo company
and has Michelin Japan as its secretariat. The consortium is also supported
by local authorities. GAM's mission is to promote AM in Japan through
education, application, and research and development (R&D). Skilled
human resources are key to establishing AM in Japan. GAM's unique
training program and collaborative activities will contribute toward this
goal.
Toshiki Niino of Tokyo University led a project to apply AM to produce

spare parts. The project addressed the problem of replacing parts that
were originally designed for conventional manufacturing. It also addressed
the business challenges associated with using AM. Hiromasa Suzuki, also of
Tokyo University, led a project investigating how to use CT scans for
inspection and quality assurance of AM parts.
Slab Corp., a Kyoto startup, has developed a large MEX system called Cha-
shitsu, which means “traditional tea ceremony room” in Japanese. The
build volume is 3 x 3 x 3 m (118 x 118 x 118 in), and it features a pellet-fed
extrusion print head. The company 3D printed a bench measuring 2.8 x 1.2
x 1.1 m (110 x 47 x 43 in) in 24 hours.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Cha-shitsu large-format MEX system, courtesy of Slab Corp.
JEOL released its JAM-5200EBM metal electron-beam PBF system in April

2021. The maximum power of the electron beam is 6 kilowatts. The
cylindrical build volume measures 250 mm (9.8 in) in diameter and 400
mm (15.7 in) in height. The company claims the system’s cathode will last
more than 1,500 hours. JEOL reports that precise beam properties can be
maintained for long periods at any position in the build area. The machine
also features a unique scan strategy and remote system monitoring using a
smart phone.
Due to the pandemic, it was difficult to hold in-person events in Japan.

Formnext Forum Tokyo was held as an online event in September 2021.
South Korea The South Korean market for AM systems and services grew to an
by Keun Park estimated $375 million in 2021, an increase of 5% over 2020. More than
400 AM-related companies are operating in the country. They include
178 service providers, 133 distributors of AM products, 65 system
manufacturers, 16 material producers, and 14 software developers.
Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction launched Korea's largest factory

for metal AM production. The company seeks to expand its 3D printing
business by serving the aviation, defense, and energy industries. The Korea
Institute of Industrial Technology developed a new DED process. It will be
used to produce a rocket propellant tank with an integral bulkhead
separating the fuel and liquid-oxygen tanks. Samyoung Machinery
commercialized a hybrid manufacturing technology that combines 3D
printing of sand and a metal casting process.
Lincsolution released the SL-2300, a large-scale VPP system with a build

volume of 2.3 x 0.8 x 1 m (90.6 x 31.5 x 39.4 in). Graphy has
commercialized the Tera Harz TC-85DAC material, a biocompatible
photopolymer developed specifically for the direct printing of clear
orthodontic aligners. Coreline Soft released artificial intelligence (AI)-
based medical-image-processing software that supports the automatic
creation of 3D models from CT scans.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D-printed orthodontic aligners, courtesy of Graphy
The Korean government continued to support the Technical Support

Center for Substantiation of Industrial 3D Printing Parts as part of its AM
roadmap. In 2021, $81 million was spent on R&D projects, a decline of
12.9% from 2020.
The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy launched a research project

that focuses on data-based AM technology development and repair for
defense products. The Ministry of Science, Information and
Communications Technology initiated a research project on 3D-printing
support for custom product manufacturing. The Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport announced a new research project to develop
AM technologies for building and construction.
Singapore Singapore continues to expand AM capabilities under the Manufacturing,

by Matthew Waterhouse Trade and Connectivity section of the five-year Research, Innovation and
Enterprise 2025 plan. The focus is on industry-driven development of
research and talent to support Singapore’s economic transformation
goals for advanced manufacturing. The National Additive Manufacturing
Innovation Cluster (NAMIC) will play a key role in leveraging the public
sector’s AM capabilities to advance industrial developments.
GE Aviation Services Singapore qualified AM to repair parts for commercial

jet engine airfoils. The company reports that this is its first maintenance,
repair, and overhaul (MRO) facility to receive international regulatory
approval.
MolyWorks is a U.S.-based producer of AM powder from recycled metal. It

has partnered with Bureau Veritas, a certification company, to establish an
operation in Singapore. It intends to promote sustainable business
opportunities by leveraging MolyWorks’ metal recycling capabilities and
sustainability services. TÜ V SÜ D will be involved by addressing metal-
powder, carbon-footprint, and recycled-content verification. The aim is to
create a circular economy for AM metals.
Siemens Advance Manufacturing Transformation Center has expanded its

services. It offers a suite of AM and other digital solutions to support small-
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Johnson & Johnson launched a 3D Printing Point of Care center at the

National University Hospital in Singapore. The center provides patient-
specific anatomical models for pre-operative planning. Future plans
include medical device and instrument production.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Osteopore, headquartered in Singapore, received patent approval for its

regenerative implants in the European Union, China, and Australia. The
implant has been successfully commercialized for surgical use.
3D printing of a regenerative implant, courtesy of Osteopore
The Singapore Standards Council, government agencies, and NAMIC have

developed two AM standards. Standard SS 666 addresses qualification of
parts produced using metal AM. TR 92 is a collection of design for AM
(DfAM) guidelines. An open grant call program was launched by Enterprise
Singapore and NAMIC to encourage more SMEs to get involved in AM.
Hitachi Metals and Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology

(SIMTech) have established a joint R&D laboratory to develop next-
generation metal AM powder technologies. ST Engineering has teamed
with SIMTech to develop AM processes for aerospace MRO applications.
The NAMIC-organized Global Additive Manufacturing Summit was held

online in November 2021. It ran in conjunction with the fourth Industrial
Transformation Asia Pacific event.
Taiwan The AM industry in Taiwan continues to develop and commercialize

by Jeng-Ywan Jeng binder jetting (BJT), MEX, PBF, and VPP. XYZprinting, a manufacturer of
industrial systems, has invested in polymer PBF, BJT, and MEX. MEX
continues to dominate the market, with many Taiwanese companies
developing machines and materials.
DLP light engines made by Young Optics have been integrated into many
3D printers for dental and jewelry applications. Phrozen developed a
desktop liquid crystal display (LCD) VPP system with 8,000 and 4,000
pixels. Circle Metal Powder and Chung Yo Materials continue to invest in
developing metal powders for AM.
The number of AM system vendors supporting dental applications has

grown. Ackuretta has invested in this field and launched a new VPP system
with LCD technology. Additive Intelligence, a Taiwanese startup, uses AI to
solve technical problems encountered during the PBF build process.
Electronics manufacturers in Taiwan, such as Foxconn, are adopting metal

and polymer AM for final part production. Companies are investing in
metal PBF for aerospace applications and injection mold tooling. The
Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Economic Affairs

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
continue to invest heavily in AM academic research and industrial

development. In 2021, about $60 million was awarded for AM-related
projects, including development of key parts for high-power fiber lasers.
The High-Speed 3D Printing Research Center at the National Taiwan

University of Science and Technology is developing new AM technologies.
Its research focus includes developing 3D printers and DfAM using lattice
structures. Research projects include diode-laser PBF and large-scale VPP
using LCD technology.
Large-scale LCD-based VPP system, courtesy of the National

Taiwan University of Science and Technology
Most of Taiwan's AM companies, including Tongtai and XYZprinting, were

at the Taiwan International 3D Printing Show in December 2021. Many
local distributors were also present and represented companies such as 3D
Systems, Desktop Metal, Formlabs, HP, Notion Systems, and Stratasys.
Australasia Australasia includes Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and

neighboring islands in the Pacific. This region of the world began to use
AM technology more than three decades ago.
Australia Despite many challenges, the AM industry had high resilience in 2021.
by Milan Brandt and New opportunities arose through federal government programs,
Simon Marriott including the Modern Manufacturing Initiative (MMI). No major AM
conferences or exhibitions took place in 2021 due to lockdown
restrictions imposed by state governments.
3DMEDiTech received a significant contract from the Australian

government to design and 3D print COVID-19 testing kits. The company
purchased three PBF systems from EOS to meet the demand. Titomic
raised A$11 million ($8.1 million) through a share purchase plan and
received an MMI grant of A$2.3 million ($1.7 million). The company
acquired Tri-D Dynamics through its U.S. subsidiary and acquired
Dycomet, a Dutch cold-spray technology provider. Titomic sold a TKF 1000
system to TWI in the UK for £1.2 million ($1.6 million).
SPEE3D received an MMI grant for the SPAC3D project. It will investigate
using a copper alloy with the aim of making low-cost 3D-printed rocket
engines. The rocket nozzle liner shown in the following image took 3.3
hours to build in copper. It measures 300 mm (11.8 in) in height and
weighs 17.9 kg (39.5 lbs).

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Copper rocket nozzle liner, courtesy of SPEE3D
In 2021, SPEE3D sold systems to 3D in Metal in El Salvador, as well as

Elementum 3D and Penn State University in the U.S. It also launched the
SPEE3DCraft metal AM simulator at Formnext.
Conflux Technology received A$8.5 million ($6.3 million) in Series A

funding to expand its activities and capabilities, including the post-
processing of metal parts. The company also established an office in Japan.
Amiga Engineering received an order from Hypersonix to 3D print a

hydrogen-powered scramjet engine. AML3D sold a large metal AM system
to RMIT University and the University of Queensland. Romar Engineering
received a grant of A$5.8 million ($4.3 million) from the MMI program to
manufacture fluid and motion control systems for space missions. Amaero
announced a plan to construct a titanium alloy powder manufacturing
plant valued at A$8 million ($5.9 million). The company also entered into a
three-year deal with Gilmour Space Technologies to supply rocket motor
parts.
New Zealand Despite the pandemic, most AM service providers in New Zealand
by Olaf Diegel reported growth in 2021. Several industrial AM systems were purchased
for more than $100,000 each. They included three metal AM systems,
with an additional three machines ordered by early February 2022. Other
new installations included three Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) machines from
HP, a full-color material jetting (MJT) system, and several industrial VPP
systems. The overall growth of the New Zealand AM market in 2021 is
estimated to be 20–30%.
Rodin Cars, a manufacturer of performance race cars, produced the

titanium AM gearbox for its FZERO model, shown in the following image.
The company produced the part on a DMP Factory 500 metal PBF system
from 3D Systems, which was installed in 2021.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Titanium gearbox housing, courtesy of Rodin Cars
Foundry Lab, based in Wellington, raised $11 million for its Digital Metal
Casting process focused on making metal casting easier. The process uses
BJT to print a mold. A microwave furnace melts a block of metal into the
mold. The process eliminates the need to pour molten metal.
Scan2Cast has developed advanced automated software workflows for 3D-

printed orthotic splints, casts, and prosthetic sockets. The company is
expected to launch as a startup in 2022. Peke Waihanga, Artificial Limb
Services, the University of Auckland, and FI Innovations developed a
specialized 3D- printed prosthetic for an elite long-distance kayaker.
Except for a few small AM-related research projects, the New Zealand
government has not provided major funding for infrastructure or research.
The New Zealand government is developing an advanced manufacturing
plan for industry, which is expected to include AM.
The annual Manufacturing, Design and Entrepreneurship conference,

which has a large focus on AM, was held as a virtual event in 2021. More
than 160 people attended, with equal participation from industry and
academia. The 2022 conference was cancelled due to public health
restrictions.
Europe As many as 118 manufacturers in Europe produced and sold industrial

AM systems in 2021, up from 113 in 2020, 95 in 2019, and 69 in 2018.
Europe has a long history of developing metal AM equipment and

continues to lead in this area. At the end of 2021, Wohlers Associates found
47 manufacturers in Europe (green bar in the following graph) that
produced and sold metal AM systems. This compares to 42 companies
(gray bar) in 2020.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Companies in many parts of the world are developing and commercializing

metal AM systems. In the U.S., 22 manufacturers commercialized AM
systems in 2021, compared to 21 in 2020 and 16 in 2019. In China, 16
manufacturers were producing metal AM systems at the end of 2021, with
the same number in 2020 and 10 in 2019.
Austria The Austrian AM community continues to grow. Cubicure and Incus

by Jürgen Stampfl successfully completed funding rounds in 2021. Stratasys invested in
Genera, a developer of an automated VPP 3D printing process. EOS
acquired a stake in Metalpine, a startup that develops gas-atomized metal
powders. The Swedish Prototal group acquired 1zu1 Prototypen,
Austria’s largest AM service provider.
Lithoz expanded its ceramic VPP offerings by launching the CeraFab Lab
L30, a new compact entry-level system. The company opened a flagship
innovation lab at its Vienna headquarters and a second production facility
that is 2,200 m2 (23,680 ft2) in size.
Ceramic part printed on the CeraFab

Lab L30, courtesy of Lithoz
Cubicure released its large-scale Cerion VPP system. The product is said to
increase throughput by 5,000% compared to existing hot lithography VPP
systems. The system has a moving DLP engine that can expose the build
area of 1000 x 280 mm (39.4 x 11 in) with a resolution of 50 m (0.0020
in).
Weirather introduced an updated version of its WLS 3232 polymer PBF

system, which increases productivity and includes an improved infrared-
heated build chamber. APS Tech Solutions, an Austrian startup, released an
MEX system that can process continuous-fiber-reinforced polymers.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The 8th Austrian 3D-Printing Forum took place in 2021. The 6th Metal
Additive Manufacturing Conference had options for both in-person and
online attendance. The European Conference on Structural Integrity of
Additive Manufactured Materials 2021 was an international online event
focused on fracture mechanics of AM.
Belgium The development and application of AM in Belgium have grown faster

by Kris Binon and than in many other countries. Most companies in the AM market have
Julien Magnien reported substantial increases in sales and overall activity. Belgium is
playing a leading role in the advancement of the digital value chain.
AdditiveLab, Materialise, Oqton, and Twikit are headquartered in the
country.
Several Belgian startups have attracted international attention, and some

were acquired. For example, Aerosint was acquired by Desktop Metal and
Oqton by 3D Systems. Other significant startups include Sculpman,
producers of a variable-width MEX nozzle, and FuseLab, manufacturer of
dual-extruder MEX systems. Guaranteed, another startup, provides metal
part repair, and ValCUN claims to be developing an innovative metal AM
process.
Metal AM is a key focus area for many R&D projects at Belgium’s leading
universities. AM R&D is also progressing in higher education and at
research institutes such as A6K, Flanders Make, Imec, and VITO. Research
covers a wide range of AM processes, applications, and technology
readiness levels. Educational institutions are making significant
investments to increase 3D-printing capacity.
3D printing is used widely for medical applications such as orthoses,

insoles, implants, prostheses, dental parts, and various medical devices.
Many companies are involved in this activity, including 2ingis, Aqtor,
CADskills, Dentsply Sirona, Materialise, Spentys, and V-Go.
3D-printed orthotic devices for carpometacarpal

injuries, courtesy of Spentys
Engineering consultancy Addiparts launched a service for quantifying

mechanical properties of MEX parts. The aim is to widen the range of
structural applications for parts produced in ULTEM 9085 and
polyetherketoneketone (PEKK). A four-year project called ARIAC hopes to
use AI and AM to reduce the number of trials needed to develop material-
specific production parameters.
LM3D specializes in large-scale animatronics for the entertainment

industry. The company has produced automotive and aerospace parts
using an MEX printer from Massivit. Solvay is collaborating with 9T Labs of
Switzerland to develop carbon composite AM parts for series production.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Denmark According to the national AM Report 2021, one-third of Danish

by Aia Lykke and manufacturing companies use AM. This is a significant increase over
Lars Holmegaard previous years. Companies using AM reported its positive impact on their
overall business approach. It supports the development of more
sustainable production methods with reduced use of materials, less
waste, and more recycling.
The Danish government is expected to introduce a new carbon dioxide

(CO2) tax in 2022. This will require the manufacturing sector to include
sustainability in business and production practices. Danish AM company
Create it REAL supplied the AM technology used by the German GeBioM
Group to produce custom orthopedic insoles. The companies claim the
business model has the potential to revolutionize the orthotics industry.
The Danish construction sector is increasing its use of AM. 3DCP Group,
COBOD, and WOHN are applying AM with the hope of transforming
construction into a sustainable industry. Startup companies, including
3DCP, Drizzle, Nobula3D, Quantica 3D, and WOHN, are introducing AM
products and new business models.
Rendered image of a home designed

for AM, courtesy of WOHN
In 2021, the first Danish full-time bachelor-level AM education program

received approval. It is run by the International Business Academy in
Kolding and was developed in cooperation with the Danish AM Hub.
The Danish AM Hub received a new private grant of 40 million Danish

krone ($5.9 million) from the Danish Industry Foundation. The grant is
aimed at helping small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies focus
more on AM and sustainable production.
AM Summit 2021 attracted a record 350 participants to discuss the impact

of additive technologies on sustainable production. An AM Venture Day
held in October 2021 focused on creating more startups by bringing
together investors and entrepreneurs. The 2021 Hi Tech & Industry
Scandinavia Expo focused on 3D technologies with an area of the show
dedicated to AM.
Finland Finnish companies are increasingly using AM for production. EOS is the
by Mika Salmi largest AM company in Finland, and it continues to develop processes
and materials for metal and polymer PBF.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In 2021, Nanoform Finland and Aprecia announced a collaboration to

advance 3D-printed medications. The first target of the effort is to combine
Nanoform’s fast-dissolving particles with Aprecia’s ZipDose technology.
The resulting rapid disintegrating characteristics could support high-
performance buccal and oral delivery for medications where rapid
absorption is essential.
Neles delivered its first 3D-printed pressure-retaining valve body for field
testing at the Teollisuuden Voima Oyj’s Olkiluoto nuclear power plant.
Brinter raised €1.2 million in seed funding to expand its bioprinting
operations.
3D-printed metal valve body removed from build plate (left) and assembled
with machined circular flanges (right), courtesy of Neles
SelectAM, a Finnish startup, is developing automated part-identification/

redesign software for AM. Brightplus, in collaboration with Maker3D,
released BrightBio, an MEX filament made from biomaterials and
industrial byproducts. Bloft Design Lab has developed a large-scale MEX
system with a modular frame and steel-wire control system.
Hyperion Robotics is developing a technology to 3D print reinforced

concrete. New AM research activities in Finland include 4D printing, bio-
based materials, design, simulation, verification, and quality control.
The Finnish Rapid Prototyping Association, founded in 1998, promotes AM

activity and acts as an independent source and national resource for
information. The Finnish Additive Manufacturing Ecosystem was
established to increase industrialization of 3D printing and aims to create
more business opportunities using AM. The Finnish Medical 3D Printing
Network took the first steps toward formalizing its organization.
France Due to the pandemic, the downturn of commercial aerospace impacted

by Benoit Verquin the AM industry in France. However, industrial adoption of AM continues
to grow across other sectors.
Since 2017, Erpro Group has used AM to mass produce more than 18
million mascara brushes for Chanel. In 2021, the company began to use AM
to produce eyeglass frames for Lexilens from Abeye. The company claims
the glasses make reading easier for children and adults with dyslexia. The
glasses are being marketed by Atol, a chain of opticians in France. Erpro
Group produces the frames in PA11 using HP’s Jet Fusion 5200 printers.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Lexilens eyeglasses, courtesy of Atol, Abeye, and Erpro Group
The first waterbushing produced using wire-arc AM was successfully

installed on a TotalEnergies well in the North Sea. Waterbushings are
safety components used in the oil and gas industry to control hydrocarbon
kicks from wells under construction. Kicks are an unexpected and
unwanted influx of reservoir fluid into the wellbore, the hole that creates
the well. The waterbushing was designed by Vallourec and is 1.2 m (47.2
in) in height and weighs 220 kg (485 lbs). The project was completed in
collaboration with RAMLAB, a Rotterdam-based startup. The company
claims that the waterbushing generated 45% less emissions compared to
the usual forging and machining process.
Installed waterbushing made by wire-arc

AM, courtesy of Vallourec
Vistory is a French startup that has developed MainChain, an AM

cybersecurity solution based on a private blockchain technology. The
software is designed to protect the entire AM value chain. The French
Army used this product during Operation Barkhane to quickly produce and
deliver spare polymer parts using AM while preserving data security.
Zetamix, a subsidiary of Nanoe, developed ceramic and metal feedstock for

MEX. The company also supplies the debinding oven and sintering furnace.
Zetamix has sold more than 100 AM-related systems in the past three
years.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Alumina trailing shield for TIG orbital welding (left) and in

operation (right), courtesy of Orbitalservice and Zetamix
The 25th European Forum on AM, organized by France Additive, the

French association for AM technologies, was held virtually in June 2021.
France Additive will celebrate its 30th year in June 2022 at the 2022
European Forum. The first French editions of the International Symposium
on Metal AM is due to be held April 2022 at the Cetim Technical Centre for
Mechanical Industries in Senlis, located near Paris.
France’s national plan for 3D printing was launched in October 2021. It

intends to support the economic development and self-reliance of France’s
AM industry. It is part of a wider initiative called Solutions Industrie du
Futur, which means Industry Solutions of the Future. The initiative is led
by France Additive and the Union of Metallurgical Industries and Trades.
Several French organizations working on metal AM R&D have begun to

coordinate efforts. The organizations include AddimAlliance, Additive
Factory Hub, Cetim, Initiative 3D, and the Scientific Interest Group (SIG).
The SIG is led by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. The
objective of the collaboration is to form and sustain a strong research
network with shared equipment and knowledge. The group will support
SMEs and large organizations.
Germany The pandemic continued to affect the German AM community and its
by Sebastian Piegert activities in 2021. Even so, the German AM ecosystem continued to
and Christian Seidel develop. A major emerging trend is the partnering of complementary
organizations to develop capabilities along the entire AM value chain.
Another key area of concentration is centered around reducing the
carbon footprint, achieving climate neutrality, and improving
manufacturing sustainability. Announcements in this area were made by
Arburg, DMG Mori, and EOS.
The M220 MEX system from Apium was used at hospitals to manufacture
custom implants in polyether ether ketone (PEEK). Arburg announced the
introduction of a high-temperature version of the Freeformer 300-3X
system, which can use PEEK pellets as feedstock. Arburg subsidiary
InnovatiQ launched the LIQ 7 system, which is capable of 3D printing
silicone in full color. EOS released two new high-performance materials,
Al2139 AM aluminum and IN939 nickel alloy.
Gefertec developed an integrated CAD/CAM solution for its wire-based

DED system using the Siemens NX platform. Multec announced a four-
nozzle print head, known as 4MOVE, aimed at increasing print speed.
Siemens implemented its AM Network platform at Schaeffler to integrate
design and manufacturing of 3D-printed parts.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
SLM Solutions released its Free Float software, focused on reducing or

eliminating support structures. Trumpf installed new shielding gas
technology and a multi-laser capability on its TruPrint 3000 series. The
company also developed laser PBF to support tungsten and TruTops Print
software, which enables printing of overhangs at angles as low as 15°.
Voxeljet announced the qualification of Brightorb, a high-performance
ceramic for AM developed jointly with AGC Ceramics.
Manufacturing sequence of a Siemens Energy gas turbine load collar

produced using wire-based DED, courtesy of Gefertec
The use of AM for large-scale industrial applications is progressing.

Mercedes-Benz Trucks and Daimler Buses deployed mobile 3D printing to
produce spare parts for buses. Volkswagen announced a target of
producing more than 100,000 parts per year using metal BJT technology.
Siemens Energy delivered a complete set of AM-produced gas turbine
vanes to a power generation utility called DREWAG. The parts will be
installed at a legacy power plant in Dresden to increase efficiency and
power output.
An AI production network involving universities, Fraunhofer institutes,

and the German Aerospace Center was launched in Augsburg in 2021. The
network is funded by the State of Bavaria with up to €80 million. AM will
play a key role in the network’s aim to increase production efficiency. The
Industrialization and Digitization of Additive Manufacturing for
Automotive Series Processes (IDAM) project was the first of six new
projects. It was funded through the German government initiative, Line
Integration of AM Processes. IDAM ended in February 2022 with the
installation of a fully automated process chain for metal AM at the BMW
AM campus in Oberschleissheim.
Both Rapid.Tech and the 5th Additive Manufacturing Forum Berlin were
held as virtual events. Formnext, the leading AM event in Germany, was
held as a hybrid online and in-person event in Frankfurt in November
2021. Many conferences used hybrid formats, including SurfAM3 in
Dresden and the 46th MPA Seminar in Stuttgart.
Hungary The pandemic has had minimal impact on the AM industry in Hungary.
by Miklos Odrobina This contributed to significant market growth in 2021. The medical and
dental sectors show great potential for the future. MEX is the most
common 3D printing technology, but demand for VPP and metal AM is
increasing. An estimated 3% of Hungarian companies have used AM.
Craftbot released new slicing and print preparation software, known as

Craftware Pro, to complement its range of desktop MEX machines. Grante
Corp. launched the DUPLEX S2 VPP system, which uses the company’s
patented MAP technology. It supports simultaneous printing from two
directions.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Startup companies are entering the Hungarian AM market. They include

developers of CAD software to support AM, developers of 3D printers, and
AM service providers. EBK-Hungary is a service provider with polymer and
metal 3D printing capabilities and reverse engineering services. The
company has experienced increasing demand for its metal AM capabilities,
particularly for industrial applications.
Metal AM part for industrial robotic application,

courtesy of EBK-Hungary
The Hungarian government and EU have been funding small companies to

help them invest in manufacturing, including 3D printing. Hungarian
universities have received financial support from the government to
enhance their R&D activities in the AM field.
Some of the most important AM R&D topics among Hungarian companies

are advanced applications, developing 3D printers, automation, and
methods of DfAM. 3D-printer development focuses on improving speed
and precision for both plastic and metal systems.
Philament, the largest Hungarian MEX filament manufacturer, changed its

name to Filaticum. The company produces specialized polylactic acid
(PLA) filaments, including conductive, heat-resistant, abrasion-resistant,
shockproof, and UV-resistant varieties.
No AM-specific conferences or exhibitions were held in Hungary in 2021.

However, AM was showcased at the Automotive Hungary and 9th Industry
Days events in June 2021. Hungarian AM resellers and service providers
offer free webinars regularly to promote AM solutions.
Italy The pandemic continued to affect the Italian AM market in 2021.

by Michele Pressacco, Elisa However, Italy was less impacted than some countries due to high
Salatin, and Riccardo Toninato vaccination rates and the adoption of strict social distancing policies. The
sustainability of AM processes, in comparison to conventional
manufacturing techniques, is attracting increased interest in Italy.
Due to the pandemic, the aviation market continues to struggle and has not
yet experienced a turnaround. The growth of electric vehicles and related
R&D activities has provided momentum to increase AM adoption in the
automotive sector. This is exemplified by XEV’s launch of the YOYO fully
electric car, primarily produced using AM.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
YOYO electric vehicle, courtesy of XEV
The Italian medical sector has recovered partially from the pandemic due
to government activities and many commercial initiatives. In March 2021,
LimaCorporate announced the opening of the ProMade Point of Care
Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan, New York. This
industry-owned and operated center designs and 3D prints custom
implants to treat complex clinical cases.
Also, LimaCorporate completed the development of its first fully AM-

produced cementless tibial plate in collaboration with the Hospital for
Special Surgery. It was implanted in April 2021 by Ivan De Martino at the
Agostino Gemelli IRCCS University Hospital Foundation in Rome.
Roboze released its new Automate software and the ARGO 1000 industrial
MEX system. Italian system manufacturer WASP completed the printing
phase of its TECLA sustainable living project using the Crane WASP system.
Velo3D signed an exclusive agreement with CRP Meccanica, a CNC
machining service provider, to distribute its metal 3D printing systems in
Italy.
Prima Additive and Materialise collaborated to optimize the Print Genius

150 metal PBF system. It uses the Materialise Control Platform to provide
real-time control functions and streamlined integration with external
systems. In October 2021, Pometon established Pometon Plus, a new
business division dedicated to the production of metal powders for AM.
BEAMIT Group developed an AM method to process René 80 RAM1 nickel-

based superalloy for applications in the energy and aerospace sectors. The
company also acquired UK-based 3T Additive Manufacturing from AM
Global. Desktop Metal acquired Italy-based Aidro, a pioneer in producing
hydraulic and fluid power systems using AM. Trumpf acquired Sisma’s AM
business. Prototal Industries, the leading Nordic company for polymer AM
and injection molding, expanded its operations in Italy by acquiring
Prosilas.
The RM Forum in Milan hosted a Women in 3D Printing in-person event in

September 2021.
Netherlands Ultimaker continues to focus on expanding its software offerings and

by Joris Peels developing new partnerships, most notably with material producers.
ColorFabb offers specialized filaments for MEX, including low-density
filaments for lightweight parts. The company is said to be developing a
more sustainable alternative to PLA. 3D4Makers offers short carbon-fiber
composite filaments based on PEEK and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), as
well as high-temperature polyamide variants.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
MCPP Netherlands, a Mitsubishi subsidiary, is one of the largest

manufacturers of filaments sold by other brands with hundreds of product
lines. The company has developed a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)
filament and products designed for pellet-based MEX systems. BASF
filament production is partly based in the Netherlands. Covestro acquired
the AM resin business from DSM in April 2021.
Concrete 3D printing startup Vertico has established its headquarters in

Eindhoven. The Eindhoven University of Technology print center and the
Saint-Gobain Weber Beamix concrete printing factory construct partially
printed houses. The first occupants moved into a suite of commercially
developed and constructed homes in the Eindhoven in early 2022.
House with 3D-printed concrete walls in Project Milestone

Eindhoven, courtesy of Saint-Gobain Weber Beamix
MX3D uses wire-arc AM to 3D print parts for metal bridges. The company
received additional funding in 2021. Other companies that offer medium-
and large-format AM systems in the Netherlands are 10XL, Builder, CEAD,
The New Raw, Poly Products, Ramlab, Royal3D, and Tractus3D.
Norway Sustainability efforts and the negative impact of the pandemic on supply
by Klas Boivie chains have renewed interest in AM in Norway. More companies are
using AM to shorten supply chains and repair parts.
Equinor, an energy company, established a Digital Centre of Excellence

after its successful investigation into AM for repair and spare parts. The
company investigated replacing obsolete locking screws for switch
cabinets used on offshore operations. The solution offered by the cabinet
supplier was to replace the entire cabinet when the locking screws failed.
However, changing a cabinet requires rewiring and installing a temporary
switch system during the repair. Equinor worked with electromechanical
supplier Karsten Moholt to find an alternative solution. The company
demonstrated a reverse-engineered PA12 screw made using laser PBF. The
screw fulfilled all installation and safety requirements. A conservative
estimate of savings to Equinor was more than €10 million per year using
the AM part.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Locking screws made in PA12 using

laser PBF, courtesy of Equinor
Fieldmade continued its development of systems for distributed

manufacturing supported by digital supply chains, including both digital
solutions and fully deployable microfactories. The company’s NOMAD03
system can be transported anywhere by truck and can build metal AM
parts within one hour of deployment.
Transport (left) and operation (right) of the NOMAD03

mobile metal AM system, courtesy of Fieldmade
The first national conference in Norway dedicated entirely to AM was held

in 2021. Delegates attended from industry, academic institutions, and
research organizations. At the conference, key stakeholders decided to
work together to organize a national interest group on AM. This
organization will be responsible for an annual national AM conference.
Poland The Ministry of Education and Science launched the Laboratories of the
by Andrzej Kesy and Future initiative for students. In cooperation with the Chancellery of the
Ireneusz Musiałek Prime Minister of Poland, the program will help students acquire
practical skills through experimentation. The cost of the program is
1 billion Polish zloty ($223.2 million) and will include laboratories with
3D-printing capabilities.
Align Technology, a major producer of dental aligners, announced a

production facility in Wrocław. The plant will manufacture Invisalign
orthodontic aligners. Plans are to open in early 2022.
3dArtech has developed the SkribiArt MEX system for construction and
artistic applications. The technology processes plaster and ceramics. The
printer can produce fire-retardant, acoustic, and decorative wall panels
with self-supporting structures.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Decorative wall panel produced with SkribiArt

MEX printer, courtesy of 3dArtech
Grupa Azoty, a Polish chemical company, developed a new MEX filament

from starch called Tarfuse Envi. The material is water-soluble, fully
biodegradable, and environmentally friendly.
The 3D Solutions international fair ran August/September 2021 in Poznań.

In October 2021, the 3D Printing Days event was held in Kielce.
Portugal The pandemic compounded difficulties already experienced by the

by Joel Vasco Portuguese automotive sector in 2021. Many companies diversified their
activities and shifted their business model to include AM, transforming
the threat imposed by the pandemic into a new opportunity.
Significant investments have been made, particularly in metal PBF and

DED. Erofio, a toolmaker in Batalha, purchased two Concept Laser M2
machines from GE Additive for €3.7 million. These systems were added to
the company’s existing fleet of M2 and M3 machines from Concept Laser.
Stainless steel and maraging steel are being processed. The main
application is mold making with a focus on conformal cooling. Investments
such as this underline the interest in Portugal to use AM for advanced
tooling and final part production.
Expanded PBF facilities for tool making, courtesy of Erofio
The Polytechnic Institute of Leiria continues its work in the research,

development, and application of AM technologies. Its focus is to make AM
the core of an ecosystem, which includes developing new materials,
process automation, control systems, and training. The goal is to grow the
AM industry in Portugal, increase AM skills, and promote sustainable mass
customization.
The ProDPM’21 conference was held online. It featured keynote speakers

and participants from 13 countries. The 3D Additive Expo fair that was
planned to be held at the Exposalão exhibition center was postponed until

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
March 2022 due to the pandemic. The event targets system manufacturers,
resellers, service providers, and other AM stakeholders. It aims to increase
AM adoption within Portugal.
Romania More than 50 new laser PBF systems were installed in 2021, mainly at
by Nicolae Balc dental labs in the country. AM service provider NUTechnologies
completed an extensive survey focused on the aims, expectations, and
future direction of the AM industry in Romania. According to the survey,
metal AM applications and a drive toward Industry 4.0 integration and
automation are expected to increase significantly in 2022.
CAD Works installed new AM machines, including a ProX SLS 6100 from
3D Systems and a Markforged X7 MEX system. The company’s plan is to
extend its 3D-printing services from prototyping to serial production.
Many startup companies have emerged as 3D printing service providers.

The typical investment in each startup is in the range of €20,000–30,000.
NUTechnologies and CAD Works have each invested more than €500,000
in AM equipment. It will be used for demonstration and to provide 3D-
printing services. Local material providers produce MEX filaments in PLA
and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS).
The Transilvania University of Brasov developed an unmanned aerial

vehicle (UAV) for a range of applications, including rescue operations and
detecting illegal hunting. The UAV’s wings were made using an MEX
system with composite material filament. Some metal parts for the motor
were produced using laser PBF.
3D-printed composite UAV wings, courtesy

of the Transylvania University of Brasov
The Polytechnic University of Bucharest financed the Tehnopolis project to

purchase metal AM equipment and 3D scanning systems. The Technical
University of Cluj-Napoca (TUCN) worked with University of Medicine and
Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca surgeons to develop custom mandible
reconstruction plates made by laser PBF. A training center for surgical
operations was also launched using 3D-printed anatomical models.
Online AM events were organized by TUCN and University of Galati. The

Bright International Summer School, operated by TUCN, had more than
200 online attendees. Representatives from 3D Systems, ETEC, Materialise,
SLM Solutions, and Stratasys participated online. On-site demonstrations
and online webinars were organized by CAD Works and NUTechnologies.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Slovenia Throughout the pandemic, AM has gained additional significance in

by Igor Drstvenšek Slovenia. Its flexibility to adapt to unforeseen changes in industrial
supply chains was proven. Applications that were most impacted by the
increased adoption of AM were maintenance and other service areas.
Individual consumers invested in low-cost desktop 3D printers.
In 2021, a significant government investment from the EU Cohesion Fund

was made in Slovenia’s public R&D sector. It helped laboratories purchase
new metal and polymer AM equipment for research.
The Horizon 2020 project titled Webs of Innovation and Value Chains of
AM Under Consideration of Responsible Research and Innovation finished
in October 2021. A simulation model of the AM community’s response to
various changes in the public funding environment has been developed
and tested.
A project investigating the corrosion behavior of titanium alloys processed

using PBF is continuing at the University of Maribor (UM). A national
project on hydrogel coating of patient-specific titanium implants ended in
June 2021. It provided insight into the potential of drug delivery to an
implant site and was run jointly by the Jožef Stefan Institute and UM.
The University of Ljubljana completed research in 2021 on an annular

laser beam metal deposition process shown in the following diagram. The
work was done in collaboration with DMG Mori of Japan. A patent
application has been submitted, and a route to commercialization is being
developed.
Annular laser beam metal deposition process,

courtesy of the University of Ljubljana
Laser-based metal PBF machine manufacturer, Dentas, has started

upgrading its systems to support the production of magnesium alloy parts.
Spain After the difficulties caused by the pandemic, the AM sector in Spain
by Naiara Zubizarreta mostly recovered in 2021. Members of the Additive and 3D
Manufacturing Technologies Association of Spain (ADDIMAT) reported a
good year for sales and revenue. Jaume Homs, the newly-elected
president of ADDIMAT said, “Spain is on the right track. The rate of
adoption of AM in our country is moderate, but continuous.” ADDIMAT
membership continues to grow and surpassed 100 members in 2021.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Pangea Aerospace, based in Barcelona, claimed to test-fire the world’s first

3D-printed aerospike rocket engine at the German Aerospace Center in
Lampoldshausen, Germany. The company developed the methane and
liquid-oxygen-fueled engine in collaboration with Aenium Engineering, an
AM service provider in Valladolid, Spain.
Aerospike rocket engine test fire, courtesy of Pangea Aerospace
ITP Aero designed and 3D printed the tail bearing housing for Rolls-
Royce’s UltraFan jet engine. The company is a subsidiary of Rolls-Royce.
Using AM, the company claims the sound emitted by the turbine was
reduced by 50%.
ADDIT3D, the Spanish AM trade show, was held in October 2021 in Bilbao.
During the event, ADDIMAT chaired the CTN 324 Additive Manufacturing
committee meeting. The committee was recently created by UNE, the
Spanish Association for Standardization. The annual ADDIT3D event is
scheduled for June 2022 at the Bilbao Exhibition Centre. It will run parallel
with the Biennial Machine Tool Exhibition, the largest industrial exhibition
in Spain.
Sweden AM developments are increasing in Sweden after a year of reduced

by Seyed Hosseini activities and investment due to the pandemic. In 2021, new materials
and process solutions entered the market, and more companies have
started to apply AM in their operations.
Steel manufacturer SSAB reached a significant milestone with the

successful production of its first metal powder for AM. The company is
expected to release new steel powders for AM in 2022 to support a range
of applications. BEAMIT Group and Sandvik have co-launched the Osprey
2507 material, a super duplex stainless steel. Höganäs and Piab have
partnered to improve metal powder handling and sustainability in the
manufacturing environment. The goal is to make it safer and easier to
move bulk metal powders and to support rapid reuse of excess powder.
SAAB, a Swedish aerospace and defense company, successfully tested a 3D-

printed polymer hatch panel for aircraft. Inspired by nature and
sustainability, Normada launched a 3D-printed rocking sofa. It is produced
using renewable materials, including 80% bio-based oil and cellulose from
PEFCTM-certified Nordic pine trees.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D-printed rocking sofa, courtesy of Normada
The state-owned Research Institute of Sweden (RISE) founded the

Application Center for Additive Manufacturing in Mölndal. The center
brings together academics and end users from various industrial sectors to
jointly address AM technical challenges. Its total budget is more than €10
million, focusing on metal and polymer 3D printing. AM research in
institutions across Sweden is addressing new materials, digitalization,
supply chain management, process optimization, quality assurance, and
innovative product solutions.
Startup company Nobula introduced an innovative glass AM system known

as Direct Glass Laser Deposition. The company is a spinoff from the KTH
Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Startup company Adaxis, a
spinoff from RISE, has launched the AdaOne software for AM using robotic
manipulation. The company has raised more than €1 million in pre-seed
funding.
Switzerland AM in Switzerland, especially metal 3D printing, continued to develop in

by Marco Salvisberg 2021 despite the impacts of the pandemic. Sauber Engineering, GF
Casting Solutions, ECOPARTS, Lincotek Additive, and ProtoShape 3D-
Printing increased their AM capabilities. In some cases, companies
significantly expanded AM capacity. Large service providers have
partnered with small companies to secure their market position. One
example is AM Kyburz, a metal AM service provider, which partnered
with 3D Precision.
AM is increasingly being used for production by large companies. MAN

Energy Solutions and Sulzer are pursuing hybrid AM to produce
replacement parts. ABB Turbocharging provides laser-based PBF parts for
its customers. GF Casting Solutions has produced multiple qualified series
production parts using laser PBF for customers in the aerospace and oil
and gas sectors.
Automatic powder removal from a large part produced

using laser PBF, courtesy of GF Casting Solutions

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Startup Swissto12 produces radio frequency products using metal AM. Its
customer base includes leading companies in this field. Another startup, 9T
Labs, aims to provide a seamlessly integrated workflow solution that
combines advanced software algorithms, 3D printing technology, and post-
processing.
The national government continues to fund the Swiss m4m Center, an AM

facility focused on medical applications. It promotes the development and
use of 3D printing in traumatology, spinal, orthopedic, and dental surgery.
Turkey The pandemic and exchange rate fluctuations have significantly affected
by Burak Pekcan the AM industry in Turkey. Only a few systems have been purchased and
installed. This has provided an opportunity for Turkish AM service
providers to grow and develop their businesses. For example, +90 has set
up the first DfAM team in the region.
The EU provided funding for many new AM centers through the

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) scheme. The IPA allocated
nearly €4.5 billion between 2014 and 2020 for projects in Turkey. As of
January 2022, funding allocation had not been finalized for 2021–2027.
Funded projects through the IPA include:
▪ Ege Teknopark–Deep Technology Incubator for Entrepreneurs

▪ Istanbul Chamber of Industry–Design Ecosystem Axis for Istanbul
▪ Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakif University–Aluminum Testing, Training, and
Research Centre
▪ Sabanci University–Direct Digital Manufacturing Platform
▪ Anadolu Technology Research Park–Eskişehir Design and Innovation
Centre
▪ KTO Karatay University–Smart Technologies Design, Development, and
Prototyping Centre
▪ Özyeğin University and Beysad–Digital Transformation of SMEs in
Turkey through establishment of an Industry 4.0 Competence Centre
The Turkish Additive Manufacturing Association was founded in 2018 by

academics working in 3D printing. In September 2021, the organization
held its second conference, AMCTurkey, in Istanbul. More than 500
participants from around the world attended in-person or online. Sağlik
Bilimleri University Medical Design and Production Center (METUM)
organized a separate event on AM for the medical and dental sectors. The
event, METUM Days, was held in December 2021 in Ankara, Turkey.
Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) signed a memorandum of

understanding with FIT, a German service provider. Both companies have
declared an intention to work closely together on AM R&D to leverage
their respective strengths. TAI purchased its third Stratasys F900 system
for composites applications.
AM startups in Turkey include Sentes-Bir, producers of metal alloys for

AM, and AlloyAdditive, manufacturers of large-scale metal parts using
wire-arc AM. Another startup, Co Print, combines multiple filaments for
MEX to produce multi-color and multi-material models.
ISTON, a subsidiary of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, has

developed an MEX system for reinforced concrete. Omer Burhanoglu used
recycled PET to 3D print an ancient olive tree replica. Yildiz Technical

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
University has a project to restore archeological ceramics using AM. The

work uses 3D printing to replicate missing parts of archeological artifacts
located in the Department of Conservation and Restoration of Cultural
Property.
3D-printed replica of a 1,000-year-old olive tree,

courtesy of Omer Burhanoglu
United Kingdom The pandemic continues to affect the AM sector in the UK. Suppressed
by David Wimpenny demand from industry and funding constraints have delayed some key
and David Brackett aerospace development programs. Despite these challenges, the
development and use of AM in the UK continue to advance.
Photocentric launched the LC Opus, which the company reports is the

fastest DLP printer available to date. The system features a custom
monochrome screen. Photocentric claims it produces accurate parts
suitable for a wide range of applications.
Wayland Additive sold its first charge-neutralizing Calibur3 electron-beam

PBF system in May 2021. AMT, based in Sheffield, launched two new
chemical vapor smoothing post-processing systems known as PostPro SF.
The company completed an £11 million ($14.5 million) Series B funding
round, following a doubling of annual revenue.
Meta Additive, a spinoff from the University of Liverpool, was acquired by

Desktop Metal. The company’s novel BJT approach increases density,
reduces shrinking, and offers the potential for multi-material printing. In
March 2021, Renishaw announced it is developing a metal PBF machine to
mass produce small aerospace parts. The company received £26 million
($34.2) in funding as part of the Large Scale AM for Defence and Aerospace
project. The funding is supported by the Aerospace Technology Institute.
Newbury-based 3T Additive Manufacturing, a leading service provider for

metal AM, was acquired in April 2021 by the BEAMIT Group. The Digital
Manufacturing Centre in Silverstone opened the same month. The facility
offers both metal and polymer AM. In July 2021, AME Group, based in
Yorkshire, launched AME-3D, a polymer-parts service provider. Enable
Manufacturing announced its Additive Casting process, which the company
claims supports rapid cost-competitive production of metal parts in more
than 200 alloys.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Consumer goods and athletic applications are providing an opportunity to

push the limits of the technology and raise public awareness. The
Manufacturing Technology Centre used a Carbon M2 printer to produce a
polymer canoe paddle handle for para-athlete Emma Wiggs. Joe Townsend
made a custom composite hand cycling grip using a Markforged Mark Two
printer. Both athletes competed at the Tokyo Paralympic Games. Renishaw
announced its involvement in developing a new lightweight track bicycle
for the British Olympic team.
The UK Government is developing a carbon net-zero strategy known as

Build Back Greener. This strategy was launched in October 2021 ahead of
the 26th UN Climate Change Conference, hosted in the UK. AM is expected
to play a critical role in reducing CO2 output. More efficient and sustainable
use of materials, reduced energy for manufacturing, and high-performance
and lightweight parts are areas AM will impact. For example, Bristol-based
Domin Fluid Power used AM to significantly increase the efficiency of its
fluid power systems. The company’s first commercial offering is a servo
valve. The company claims this part reduces the part’s CO2 emissions by
1,000 kg (2,205 lbs) per year, compared to conventional valves.
AM-produced servo valve with improved efficiency,

courtesy of Domin Fluid Power
As pandemic-related restrictions eased after mid-2021, in-person AM

events resumed. The TCT 3Sixty event, held in September 2021 in
Birmingham, was one of the first trade shows after restrictions were lifted.
The next annual conference is in June 2022 in Birmingham.
Middle East The adoption of AM in the Middle East continues to increase. Much of the
work is in Israel, where startups and others are developing AM
technology. Systems for printing food, especially meat, are emerging in
Israel. People in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are particularly
interested in using large AM systems for construction applications, with
several initiatives underway.
Egypt AM adoption is growing in Egypt, especially for medical applications. A

by Khalid Abd Elghany LASERTEC 30 SLM metal PBF machine from DMG Mori was installed, and
a minimum of two metal MEX machines from Markforged were ordered
as of January 2022. In 2021, a user survey indicated that more than 55
MEX 3D printers from various system manufacturers are operating in
Egypt. Most are at universities and in company R&D centers.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Five startups in Egypt are producing AM machines for dental applications.

The following image shows the DentCase VPP system from Mogassam,
founded in Cairo. Several university groups are developing MEX 3D
printers based on open-source designs.
DentCase VPP dental 3D printer with build area (left) and post-
processing station (right), courtesy of Mogassam
AM is used the most in the medical and dental community in Egypt. In

2021, more than 1,600 custom stents for patients’ missing teeth were
made using AM. Nearly 80 custom surgical guides and models were 3D
printed for partial or total knee replacement surgeries. AM also supported
craniofacial surgeries by producing more than 120 surgical guides and an
estimated 12 titanium PBF implants.
The Egyptian government is working on a roadmap to support AM

adoption in the industrial, medical, education, and cultural sectors. It plans
to allocate about €50 million between 2022 and 2025. This funding will
support the building of local facilities to produce metal powders and
polymer filaments for AM. The money will also be used to purchase new
machines, including 3D printers for high schools and public universities.
Iran The AM industry in Iran grew in 2021 despite the pandemic. In the
by Babak Kianian medical sector, an increasing number of surgeries were performed with
the aid of 3D-printed implants. Bonash Medical manufactures patient-
specific craniomaxillofacial and spinal implants. Its services have been
approved by the National Medical Device Directorate. The energy sector
is purchasing AM machines and parts.
The vice president of Science and Technology has provided financial

support for universities to purchase PBF systems and continues to finance
products introduced at IranLabExpo 2021. Several grants have been issued
from within the vice presidency to support companies developing AM
technologies.
AM research activities from MAPNA Turbine Engineering and

Manufacturing include a DfAM project for nozzle tips on the MGT-40 gas
turbine engine. The project led to part consolidation and elimination of a
welding process. The company used metal PBF to produce a dual fuel
burner on the MGT-30 engine.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AM parts on the MGT-70 and MGT-30 engines had run for 32,000 and
9,000 equivalent operating hours, respectively, by early 2022. AM R&D
activities in the MAPNA group also include measuring residual stress in
Inconel 625 parts and using abrasive flow machining for surface
modification. Other projects include the use of nickel-based superalloys
with PBF and redesigning combustion chamber parts for land-based gas
turbines.
Noura Co. has released new features for its metal PBF machines. They
include real-time system monitoring, improved recoating control, a more
durable filtration system, and manufacturing execution systems (MES)
software for customers using several machines.
The AM Research Group at Isfahan University of Technology has several

AM research projects underway. They include DfAM, materials
development, plasma spheroidization powder treatment, and process
simulation. An industry-sponsored conference on metal AM is planned for
April 2022.
Israel Activity has focused on new AM-related technologies, particularly

by Joseph Kowen systems. Local AM part production increased, and the industry still has
many opportunities for growth. The Israeli government supported new
AM ventures by providing funding through a startup program
administered by the Israel Innovation Authority.
Stratasys is the flagship of Israeli AM. The company rebounded in 2021. It

launched two printers for dental applications based on technology
developed by Origin, which was acquired in early 2021. In October 2021,
Stratasys acquired Xaar 3D, a developer of inkjet printheads for industrial
3D printers. Subsequently, the company launched a PBF system using a
technology called Selective Absorption Fusion. The system is based on
inkjet technology from Xaar 3D and is somewhat similar to Multi Jet Fusion
from HP.
Massivit raised $44 million on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) in
February 2021. The company shipped a beta version of a new system to
Kanfit, an Israeli customer. The system prints tooling for composites
manufacturing. Tritone launched a mid-range system for printing metal
parts based on its Moldjet technology.
3DM Digital Manufacturing, a laser technology developer for polymer PBF

systems, raised $13 million on the TASE. Nano Dimension raised more
than $1.5 billion in 2020 and 2021. The money was used to acquire four
companies, including Israeli microprinting startup Nanofabrica. XJet raised
funding from private investors to develop its stainless steel nanoparticle
printer.
IO Tech received funding from Henkel, ASM Pacific Technology, and other
investors. The company shipped its first beta system in 2021. Castor raised
$3.5 million from Xerox and other investors. Assembrix collaborated with
3T Additive Manufacturing, BEAMIT Group, Boeing, and EOS to
demonstrate a secure data transfer platform for distributed
manufacturing.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The Israeli 3D-printed food sector grew in 2021. MeaTech printed its first
steak made from cultivated animal tissue. SavorEat launched a 3D-printed
vegetarian burger produced on-site in restaurants. Redefine Meat
launched a 3D-printed steak based on alternative vegetable proteins.
3D-printed steak, courtesy of MeaTech
The Additive Manufacturing Center was launched at the Technion‒Israel

Institute of Technology in 2021. Its purpose is to coordinate AM research
throughout the Technion. The Israel Institute of Metals conducts research
and offers R&D services in laser PBF and electron beam PBF. It also
conducts research in BJT of ceramics.
The annual 3D printing conference in Israel was held as part of the

International Nanotechnology Conference (NANO IL 2021) in October
2021. It was organized by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The 19th
Israel Materials Engineering Conference (IMEC2021) was held in
December 2021 and included a track on materials for AM.
Other regions Other regions of the world are embracing AM at many levels. The
following provides reports from Brazil, Canada, South Africa, and the U.S.
Brazil The number of AM machines sold in Brazil reached a similar level to 2019
by Jorge Vicente of about 40,000 units. Adoption of metal AM for dental crowns and
Lopes da Silva implants continues to grow. Engimplan, a Materialise company, is
producing VPP occlusal positioning guides. Eight companies are using or
are seeking approval to use metal PBF for medical applications in Brazil.
Occlusal positioning guide, courtesy of Engimplan

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The demand for AM declined across several sectors. Elective surgeries

were limited due to high occupancy levels in hospitals from the pandemic.
The Brazilian aerospace sector did not grow in 2021. After a 100-year
presence in the country, Ford Motor Company closed operations at all
three Brazilian plants. The federal funding agency, Finep, supports the
automotive industry through the Rota Program 2030, which includes
investments in AM innovation.
Petrobras, a producer of oil and gas, uses wire-arc and laser DED to
produce spare parts. Ampro Innovations, Carpenter Additive, and Skyline
have entered into agreements with Brazilian representatives for AM
machines, powders, and atomizers, respectively. Braskem, a Brazilian
multinational petrochemical company, has started producing
polypropylene filaments. Omnitek and Alkimat, producers of metal PBF
equipment, are now offering AM as a service. In 2021, the companies sold
machines locally, mainly for research purposes.
Metal AM materials, applications, and process development research

increased. The State University of Campinas is researching lattice
structures made using high-performance alloys such as aluminum-
scandium (AlSc), shown in the following image. Biofabrication is also a
growing with startups developing materials, equipment, and training.
AlSc lattice structure produced using PBF, courtesy

of State University of Campinas
Canada AM technologies continue to grow in Canada. New AM organizations

by Frank Defalco called the Alberta Additive Manufacturing Network and the Canadian
Additive Network have been launched. Both are tasked with growing
Canada’s AM ecosystem.
A new Canada‒Germany consortium has been announced. It is named

Artificial Intelligence Enhancement of Process Sensing for Adaptive Laser
Additive Manufacturing. It aims to automate the process of repairing parts
using 3D printing and AI. The Canadian participants are Apollo Machine
and Welding, Braintoy, McGill University, and the National Research
Council of Canada (NRC). The German partners include the Fraunhofer
Institute for Laser Technology and BCT, a software developer in Dortmund.
Next Generation Manufacturing Canada (NGen) is a non-profit organization

with more than 4,700 members. Its mission is to support the growth and
development of advanced manufacturing in Canada. The organization
made several significant AM investments in 2021, including a C$3.5 million

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
($2.8 million) supplemental grant to Mosaic Manufacturing. Partners on

the project are Dyze Design, as well as Matter and Form. The project aims
to digitize and automate manual manufacturing processes.
NGen brought together Additive Metal Manufacturing and AEM Power

Systems to work on a new project. The goal is to significantly advance the
development and commercialization of AEM’s gas-oscillation-forming
technology for superplastic forming of metals.
NGen managed a C$350,000 ($275,600) NRC-funded AM Demonstration

Program. It has resulted in more than 50 small projects designed to
introduce AM capabilities to Canadian companies. Exergy Solutions, a
Calgary company, used NGen funding to purchase a Calibur3 metal PBF
system from Wayland Additive. Exergy plans to focus on high-wear
applications across many sectors where complex geometric features and
large parts are needed. Mosaic launched Array, a fully automated AM
system capable of printing continuously for more than 72 hours without
human intervention.
Array AM system, courtesy of Mosaic
Red Deer Polytechnic (RDP) commissioned an Innovent+ BJT system from

ExOne for research into hard metals, engineered ceramics, and metal
matrix composites. RDP is accelerating development of custom assistive
healthcare devices. The institution plans to work with clinicians and users
to bring products to market with the help of 3D printing.
AON3D, a manufacturer of open-platform industrial 3D printers for

thermoplastics, raised C$11.5 million ($9.1 million) in Series A funding.
The company will use the funding to increase automation and widen the
range of materials that can be processed in its machines. Health Canada
approved the first Canadian-made 3D-printed medical implant. It is a
custom mandibular plate for use in facial reconstruction surgery. The work
is being done by the 3D Anatomical Construction Laboratory in Québec
City.
Startup Metafold 3D, launched in 2021, offers LightCycle, a cloud-based AM

design software tool. The software supports industrial applications of
metamaterials using tools for application-specific lattice selection. It also
transfers highly complex geometric features directly to 3D-printing
hardware.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Lattice structure designed using LightCycle

software, courtesy of Metafold 3D
South Africa Since the first AM system was installed in South Africa 30 years ago, the
by Deon de Beer and country’s AM market has shown steady growth. Even during the
Gerrie Booysen pandemic, the AM industry continued to create opportunities. Significant
progress has been made in developing new AM applications, especially in
the medical field.
The Centre for Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing (CRPM) has

manufactured more than 8,000 3D-printed titanium implants for South
African medical device companies. This was achieved through the Medical
Device Additive Manufacturing Technology Demonstrator project funded
by the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI). CRPM is located at the
Central University of Technology, Free State (CUT) in Bloemfontein.
AM service provider Rapid 3D reported continued growth, with 2021

being the company’s most successful year. The company added another
laser PBF system to increase capacity as customers move toward short-run
production using AM. This has been supported by application
development, product design, manufacturing optimization, finishing
techniques, 3D scanning systems, and improved software products.
Colored and textured final parts, courtesy

of Rapid 3D and Akhani

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
HH Industries purchased a Concept Laser Mlab 200R metal PBF system.

The company provides AM services to various sectors in Africa and
performs proof of concept trials and R&D. Aditiv Solutions completed and
sold its first Hyrax metal AM machine, with two more deliveries planned
for 2022.
Stainless steel door handle for the Hyrax system,

courtesy of Aditiv Solutions
The government-funded Collaborative Program in AM (CPAM) continues

to support South Africa’s adoption of 3D printing. CPAM backs industry-
focused R&D in metal and polymer AM, develops next-generation AM
human resources, and lowers entrance barriers for AM industrial adoption.
In 2021, 10 universities and private-sector companies involved in AM R&D

participated in CPAM. About 100 postgraduate students were assigned
research topics covering the full metal and polymer AM value chain.
Project topics also included materials development, processing strategies,
post-processing technologies, applications, and qualification processes to
facilitate AM adoption. CPAM also supported more than 60 industry
collaborations relating to developing knowledge and applications. CPAM’s
small-company support program was launched in 2021 and delivered five
completed projects. The program aims to support first-time entrants into
the AM market by providing access to design and processing capabilities.
The CSIR National Laser Centre launched a photonics prototyping facility

for industry and R&D organizations. The center will support establishing a
photonics industry in South Africa. It aims to bridge the gap between the
R&D development phase and the commercialization of photonics-based
products. Projects using the facility are generously supported by the DSI,
through its Industry Innovation Partnership Fund.
CUT started collaborating with Aston University, Disabled People South

Africa, Loughborough University, and the Southern African Federation for
the Disabled. The partnership made a successful bid to the British Council’s
Innovation for African Universities program. The project focus is on user-
centered designs of assistive devices for disabled persons. AM is a key
technology for this effort.
The Rapid Product Development Association of South Africa, a non-profit

organization, held its 22nd consecutive annual international conference in
Pretoria in November 2021.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
United States The AM industry in the U.S. continues to grow despite the negative
impact of the pandemic. Global supply-chain challenges affected the
delivery of materials, but the demand for AM remains high. Additional
activity in the U.S. can be found throughout this report, including
significant R&D projects in Part 6.
The aerospace, defense, medical, and consumer goods industries had

major growth in AM adoption. SpaceX, a leader in the commercial space
race, has partnered with Launcher, a developer of rockets for small
satellites. The companies use a Sapphire metal PBF system from Velo3D to
produce pressure vessels, turbopumps, and propellant tanks.
Inconel propellant tank, courtesy of Launcher
Cobra Golf released the King Putter series of golf clubs. The internal
structure of the putters is 3D printed on an MJF system from HP. The
company also released a limited production series of the King Supersport-
35 Putters that use metal BJT from HP. Fitz Frames, an Ohio company,
continued to sell personalized 3D-printed glasses for adults and children.
Many new U.S. companies are entering the AM market or gaining market
traction. 3DEO, a California manufacturing company, announced it had
shipped its one-millionth 3D-printed part to a customer. The company
uses a proprietary hybrid BJT and CNC system. ICON and Mighty Buildings
are developing a business model for 3D printing sections, such as walls, for
homes and other buildings.
Azul 3D launched a new VPP system. The company has partnered with
Wilson Sporting Goods to manufacture pickleball paddle inserts. Zellerfeld,
a New York company, is manufacturing standard and custom-fit 3D-
printed shoes using thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU). The company
reported that it had taken six years to develop a business model and
capacity to scale the printing of shoes.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Shoes 3D printed in TPU, courtesy of Zellerfeld
The U.S. Marine Corps has created a digital parts inventory for the 3D
printing of spare parts. The digital inventory will host files that can be
printed on-demand at nearly any location. The Marine Corps operates
more than 300 3D printers across its facilities.
Velo3D launched and sold a Sapphire XC system to an aerospace customer

in 2021. The metal PBF system was designed for manufacturing large parts
and production volumes. Other U.S. system manufacturers have released
new systems, which can be found in Part 8 of this report.
Multiple AM industry events were held in-person across the U.S. In May
2021, the Additive Manufacturing User Group (AMUG) conference was
held in Orlando, Florida. In September, RAPID + TCT 2021 was held in
Chicago, Illinois. The conference hosted 265 exhibiting companies. In
November 2021, academic and industry experts went to Anaheim,
California, for the International Conference on AM (known as ICAM),
sponsored by the ASTM International AM Center of Excellence. In January
2022, the Women in 3D Printing TIPE 2022 conference was held virtually
with 2,350 participants.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Part 6: Research and Development
Part 6: Research and Development

Trends The pandemic continues to impact additive manufacturing (AM)
by David Bourell research. Hope for a return to normalcy came about in early 2021 as
worldwide access to vaccines increased. However, the emergence of the
Delta and Omicron variants caused research activity to retreat with
implementation of previous safety protocols.
For the research community, meetings and conferences trended toward a

mix of in-person and virtual events. Some moved completely to in-person
only, prior to the emergence of the Delta variant.
Several developing trends in research have emerged. Data management

formed one broad area of AM research. Projects address build file
management, security, open-source impacts, and digital twins. Handling of
data generated during builds has also been investigated. Broader trends in
data management—big data, deep learning, and machine learning—were
applied to AM to optimize data harvesting and build outcomes. The
ISO/ASTM 52950 standard on build file management was published in
2021.
Researchers continue to advance design for AM (DfAM) by creating design

rules, characterizing machines to define design limitations, and
investigating cost-based design. Significant work is being done by
ISO/ASTM joint group 54 on the fundamentals of design. The group plans
to publish a design guide in 2022 that is broadly applicable to all AM
materials. Research is also being conducted on surface roughness, with an
emphasis on finishing, measurement, post-processing, and the effects of a
part’s build orientation.
Polymer-based research is growing and is focused on creating cost-driven

functional parts. Researchers are studying polyamide (PA, also known as
nylon), powder bed fusion (PBF) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
material extrusion (MEX). Other topics include part quality, performance,
and reliability. Improvement of mechanical properties of polymer parts is
being addressed, particularly through composite approaches and Z-
pinning, shown in the following diagram.
Concept of Z-pinning in an AM material matrix, courtesy

of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
New metal AM research is focused on recyclability, both environmental

and cost impacts. The metal AM community is also addressing other areas,
including manufacturing, microstructures, mechanical properties, and
performance. Support structures and their removal represent a significant
cost of metal AM and efforts are underway to reduce cost. This includes the
labor to remove them and the cost of surface finishing where support
material contacts a part.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Modeling research focused on thermal simulation and feedstock-energy-

beam interactions is likely at its peak. New research areas for computer
modeling include understanding defect structures in metal AM and
optimization of cost and performance.
Patents Thousands of AM-related U.S. patent applications are filed every year.
by Aidan Skoyles and The following graph and table show the growth of AM-related U.S.
Nicholas Eitsert patents issued each year since 1998 (blue). It also shows the number of
AM-related U.S. patent applications published since 2003 (green). Patent
applications are not made public at the time of filing but are usually
published 18 months later. Most of the patents and applications are for
utility patents covering technological advancements. However, a small
number are design patents, which protect the ornamental designs of
products and hardware.
Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Patents Published Patents Published

Year Year
Issued Applications Issued Applications
1998 105 2010 265 148
1999 109 2011 243 141
2000 132 2012 294 148
2001 114 2013 337 182
2002 125 2014 368 361
2003 163 50 2015 576 1,033
2004 162 112 2016 722 1,589
2005 147 143 2017 998 2,028
2006 216 111 2018 745 1,636
2007 186 114 2019 1,707 3,044
2008 193 113 2020 5,092 7,944
2009 191 121 2021 5,030 8,050
Source: U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office
In 2021, the number of patents issued for AM-related technologies

decreased slightly compared to 2020 but remained much higher than in
previous years. The leveling of AM patent filings should be considered in
the context of a 7.5% decline in overall U.S. patent numbers during the
pandemic. This slight decrease in AM patents issued in 2021 was
accompanied by a slight increase in the number of published applications.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
This likely indicates sustained momentum in AM-related patent efforts

across the industry. After robust growth in 2019, the continued high level
of patent publication is a sign of ongoing innovation and continued
investment in AM.
Issued patents can be categorized by sector, as shown in the following

table. In general, the breakdown across sectors in 2021 remained similar
to 2020. For the third consecutive year, AM hardware/methods had the
highest proportion, accounting for almost one fifth of AM-related patents
issued. This suggests that core AM techniques remain a focus despite
growing adoption of the technology across an increasing variety of
industries. Since 2018, aerospace filings have dropped significantly,
whereas “other” filings (those not fitting into one of the eleven standard
categories) have tripled. The diversity in subject matter of filed patents
demonstrates continued innovation in AM across a broad range of
industries.
Patents issued (%) per year

Sector ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20 ‘21
AM hardware/methods 2 2 2 2 5 6 7 13 20 15 19
AM materials 3 3 3 4 2 3 6 5 9 12 12
AM software 9 6 7 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 5
Academic institutions 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 4
Aerospace 10 14 15 14 11 12 13 12 12 6 5
Architectural 13 7 10 12 10 10 8 10 3 7 5
Consumer products/electronics 10 9 10 8 14 17 15 13 16 12 10
Government/military 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 5 3
Industrial/business machines 13 15 9 10 12 10 9 14 11 13 11
Medical/dental 19 19 24 24 22 17 16 12 9 5 6
Motor vehicles 12 13 12 12 11 12 8 6 4 5 8
Other 5 8 4 6 5 7 8 4 6 9 12
The distribution of published patent applications also provides insight into

sector trends and may foreshadow patent issuance trends for 2022. The
percentage distribution in 2021 remained largely similar to 2020.
Exceptions were a marked decrease in the AM software category and
significant increases in motor vehicles and “other.”
Patents applications published (%) per year

Sector ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20 ‘21
AM hardware/methods 1 0 1 0 0 7 19 35 19 14 15
AM materials 4 7 3 3 5 2 9 9 14 14 14
AM software 3 9 6 8 5 5 7 5 5 9 5
Academic institutions 1 5 4 2 2 2 7 0 1 4 3
Aerospace 16 8 12 16 16 4 15 7 4 5 5
Architectural 6 4 10 8 12 14 4 0 3 7 7
Consumer products/electronics 11 10 12 11 14 21 5 10 21 14 12
Government/military 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 3
Industrial/business machines 9 11 12 10 10 9 11 16 10 15 13
Medical/dental 26 27 23 24 17 21 14 12 10 5 6
Motor vehicles 13 15 12 11 12 6 2 4 5 5 8
Other 9 4 5 6 6 10 5 0 7 5 9
The following table shows the distribution of entities obtaining patents

from 2011 to 2021. The numbers have remained consistent over the past
five years. Companies continue to obtain far more patents than individuals,

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
non-profit organizations, and universities combined. U.S. patents are

issued in the name of the inventor(s) but are usually assigned to the
company employing them.
Patents Issued (%) per year

Entity ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20 ‘21
Company 90 91 86 88 89 88 86 83 85 84 85
Individual 2 2 6 4 5 6 7 8 6 6 6
Lab/Non-Profit Organization 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 2
University 7 6 6 7 6 5 5 6 7 7 7
The accuracy of the data is limited by subjective decisions in the search

process—what to include or exclude. Efforts were made to remove false
positives, such as products made by additive processes that are not
typically viewed as AM technologies.
Patent litigation Litigation in the AM space remains sparse but with some notable
exceptions, consistent with previous years.
The three-year dispute between Markforged and Desktop Metal concluded

in 2021. The grievance began in 2018 when Desktop Metal sued
Markforged in federal court in Massachusetts asserting patent
infringement and theft of trade secrets. The jury returned a verdict of no
infringement on the patent matters and the case proceeded on trade
secrets and other claims. The case was settled in late 2018 before a
resolution was reached.
In 2019, Markforged filed its own suit in Massachusetts against Desktop

Metal. It argued that Desktop Metal had violated a non-disparagement
clause contained in the settlement agreement. The case was sent to
arbitration in September 2020, in accordance with the terms of the
settlement agreement. The arbitrator found in favor of Desktop Metal,
awarding no damages to Markforged. In March 2021, a district court judge
granted Desktop Metal’s motion to confirm arbitration, preventing
Markforged from challenging the outcome in district court.
Markforged was also involved in a patent infringement dispute with

Continuous Composites, which alleged that Markforged’s continuous-fiber-
reinforcement process infringed its patents. A jury trial in Delaware has
been set for December 2023.
In June 2021, Swedish bioprinting company Cellink filed a preemptive suit

against Organovo in Delaware District Court. Cellink asked the court to
declare that it was not infringing eight Organovo patents related to 3D
printing of viable cells and tissues. Organovo responded by asserting
claims of patent infringement against Cellink, naming the BIO X bioprinter
an allegedly infringing product. A five-day jury trial for Cellink’s
declaratory judgment action has been set for March 2023. Organovo’s
infringement suit had not been assigned a trial date as of February 2022.
Cellink has challenged the validity of several Organovo bioprinting patents

before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office. The board was set to decide whether to institute the first of these
actions in early 2022. If instituted, final decisions on the patentability of
the challenged patents will be issued in 2023.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Consortia and Non-competitive collaboration has played an important role in the

development of the AM industry. Among the types of collaborations are
collaboration industry roadmapping, consortia, user groups, and online forums.
Collaborations also occur among educational entities and working groups
dedicated to advancing AM industry standards, curricula, and training
materials.
Seminars, workshops, conferences, and exhibitions have provided an

opportunity for the dissemination of best practices and new applications.
They often include the display of AM parts and equipment. Workshops and
roadmapping events on AM help guide industry, academic, and
government organizations. These events bring together leaders to create a
shared vision of the future.
ASTM AM Center ASTM International is a standards development organization founded in

of Excellence 1898. ASTM provides a platform for experts worldwide to develop
by Mohsen Seifi consensus standards. Standards provide a basis for commercial and
regulatory action. As of February 2022, ASTM had more than 30,000
volunteer members from over 150 countries, representing over 140
technical committees. Nearly 13,000 standards from ASTM are operating
globally.
ASTM Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies was

formed in 2009. F42 includes more than 1,000 members from 30+
countries. Members contribute to AM standards development. In 2011,
ASTM and ISO signed a Partnership Standards Development Organization
cooperation agreement to collaborate and jointly develop internationally
recognized AM standards. More than 40 standards on AM have been
published to date, and over 75 are under development. More than 15
standards have been jointly developed by ASTM and ISO.
ASTM’s Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence (AM CoE) was

officially launched in July 2018. The founding partners are Auburn
University, EWI, the Manufacturing Technology Centre in the UK, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The National
Institute of Aviation Research and the National Additive Manufacturing
Innovation Cluster in Singapore joined the AM CoE as strategic partners.
The AM CoE is a global community of more than 100 people. It serves as a
platform for members of F42 and other ASTM technical committees to
conduct AM-related research. A major purpose is to generate data to
facilitate consensus and to form a foundation for AM standards
development.
AM CoE founding partners (top) and strategic partners (bottom)
The AM CoE’s mission is to bridge standards development with research

and development (R&D). This supports developing standards more
efficiently, filling educational and training gaps, and creating qualification
and certification programs. Its vision is to help with collaboration
between government labs, academia, and industry to advance
standardization for AM adoption. The four core functions within the AM
CoE are 1) R&D, 2) education and workforce development, 3) standards

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
and certification, and 4) industry consortium. Each function plays a

critical role toward AM standards development and accelerating AM
adoption.
America Makes America Makes, headquartered in Youngstown, Ohio, is the leading

by John Wilczynski public-private partnership for AM technology and education in the U.S.
The organization has more than 240 members from industry, academia,
government, and economic development organizations.
America Makes was formed in 2012 and brings the AM industry together
as a member-driven community. Its mission is to accelerate the U.S.
adoption of AM and enhance manufacturing competitiveness by focusing
on AM technology, workforce development, and AM ecosystems. The
institute has sponsored more than 200 projects since its founding.
In 2021, members from across the country actively engaged in more than
60 projects. America Makes also expanded the Advanced Manufacturing
Crisis Preparedness Response program. Its purpose, accomplished through
a series of workshops, is to show how AM is a viable solution to the supply-
chain crises. The organization has also launched the rapid innovation and
open project call process to support broader member input into project
topics. This resulted in 15 projects and more than $2 million in project
funding.
America Makes works through interorganizational teams of experts with a

broad range of capabilities. It seeks to support pre-competitive innovation
and organize education and training programs to develop the AM
workforce.
For education and workforce development, America Makes engaged with

more than 13,000 individuals in 2021. It continued to work to ensure AM
is a priority technology in nine of the 11 Defense Manufacturing
Community Support Program communities.
The organization is connected to a large national network to provide

members access to a range of AM capabilities and expertise. Satellite
locations are at the University of Texas at El Paso and the Texas A&M
Engineering Experiment Station. A third satellite location is at the National
Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State University.
In December 2021, America Makes opened its newly renovated facility,

called the “Front Door to Additive” in Youngstown. The new space
connects visitors to the innovative possibilities of AM. It also being used for
events, gatherings, and sharing information.
Fraunhofer Society The Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, which translates to the Fraunhofer Society,

by Bernhard Müller is one of the world’s leading applied research organizations. It develops
key technologies and facilitates commercial technology transfer. Founded
in 1949, Fraunhofer currently operates 75 institutes and research
institutions. Most of the organization’s 29,000 employees are scientists
and engineers. Its annual research budget is €2.8 billion, €2.4 billion of
which is generated through contract research.
AM is a major field of research within the Fraunhofer organization, with

activity at 19 institutes. These institutes cover production, materials, life
sciences, innovation, defense research, and information and

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
communication technologies. Several institutes have been collaborating in

AM research for more than two decades. AM research has focused on
engineering, materials, technologies, quality, and software.
At the beginning of 2021, the Fraunhofer Competence Field Additive

Manufacturing was launched. Also known as Fraunhofer ADDITIVE, it
continues the work of its predecessor, the Fraunhofer Additive
Manufacturing Alliance. In 2021, the Fraunhofer Institute for Silicate in
Würzburg and Bayreuth became the 19th member of the Institutes of the
Fraunhofer Competence Field Additive Manufacturing.
Fraunhofer ADDITIVE supports virtual events with technical sessions and

keynote speeches. Recent events included Rapid.Tech 3D 2021, German-
Japanese AM Camp Week, Advancing Precision in AM 2021, and
Praxisforum 3D Printing 2021. In November 2021, Fraunhofer research
was showcased at Formnext 2021, the first in-person German AM event in
almost two years. The Fraunhofer Direct Digital manufacturing Conference
(DDMC) was postponed due to the pandemic. It was rescheduled for March
2023 and will be held in Berlin.
Significant research results from 2021 included the development of a

technique for “fingerprinting” specific laser PBF machines. Also researched
were new heat-resistant aluminum alloys for AM and technologies for
integrating electronics into AM parts. Other projects included laser PBF
manufacturing of sensor-integrated train parts that have 5G connectivity
and cost-efficient production of complex large-scale parts using laser PBF.
Additional research was on multi-color 3D printing of prosthetic eye
models.
3D-printed eye prosthetic (right), courtesy

of Morefields Eye Hospital
Fraunhofer ADDITIVE contributed to a position paper for the World

Economic Forum, published in January 2022. The paper aims to motivate
key decision makers to support future breakthrough growth in AM.
Women in 3D Printing Women in 3D Printing (Wi3DP) is a non-profit organization dedicated to

by Nora Touré and Kristin Mulherin promoting, supporting, and inspiring women involved with AM across all
industries. It was formed in 2014 by Nora Touré. In seven years, the
organization has become a global community of more than 23,000
women and men with 80 local chapters in 36 countries.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Location of Wi3DP chapters, courtesy of Wi3DP
Women are dramatically underrepresented in product development,

engineering, and manufacturing worldwide. Wi3DP seeks to close this
gender gap in AM. The organization showcases and celebrates the work of
women leaders as engineers, business professionals, teachers, researchers,
artists, and designers.
Wi3DP has become one of the largest AM communities worldwide. The

volunteer-run organization is dedicated to developing resources aimed at
creating a stronger AM workforce and industry. Wi3DP organizes global
meetings, panel sessions, and on-site tours. These events are mainly
organized and led by local ambassadors and regional chairs, with many
chapters meeting regularly.
The organization’s resources include a database of female speakers, a job

board, and industry surveys and reports. The annual Technology, Industry,
People, and Economics (TIPE) conference in January 2022 featured more
than 150 women speakers from around the world. The next TIPE
conference will be held virtually in January 2023.
Wi3DP has expanded beyond its foundational aim of gender equity. In

2018, the group launched its Diversity for AM report. In 2021, Wi3DP
formally introduced diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming.
The DEI initiative offers insight into the AM landscape with resources
aimed at improving the industry.
The Wi3DP Youth Program is a strategic initiative aimed at inspiring the

next generation of women to engage with AM. The program provides
mentorship to girls, and it hosts networking opportunities for students to
connect with professionals across the industry.
Mobility Goes Additive The Mobility Goes Additive (MGA) network was founded in 2016. It
by Stefanie Brickwede currently has more than 140 members across the AM value chain. The
network’s focus is on users and suppliers from the mobility, aerospace,
railway, and automotive industries. In 2019, a separate medical division,
called MGA Medical, was set up within the network. It covers a wide
range of medical AM applications including anatomical models for
complex operations, orthoses and prostheses, and bioprinting.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
MGA member organizations, courtesy of Mobility Goes Additive
MGA members help each other realize the full potential of AM technology
by sharing experiences on AM materials and processes. Members
participate jointly in more than a dozen working and focus groups with the
focus of overcoming challenges and solving problems that an organization
working alone could not achieve.
MGA members share knowledge on topics such as standardization,

materials, and applications from a wide range of industries.
WeBoostAM.com is an open-access online platform that provides
information on applications, standards, materials, and training concepts.
The Industrial Additive Manufacturing Hub has been built at the network's
headquarters in Berlin, Germany. It provides a meeting place, coworking
space, and training facility for members, and it houses an extensive
exhibition highlighting applications of AM.
Another goal of the network is to raise awareness of AM. MGA organizes

events including an annual student competition and a Women in AM
conference. MGA serves as a resource for providing input to organizations,
including the European Commission and other political decision makers.
Partnerships Many AM-related partnerships have formed among organizations. They

involve service providers, systems manufacturers, producers of materials
and software, research groups, and a broad range of AM users.
Partnerships are becoming more common in areas where a single
company cannot meet the expanding needs of the market.
The following table includes notable partnerships and collaborations by

date, organization, and area of focus. It provides a sampling of partnerships
in AM from March 2021 to March 2022.
Organizations Main focus

March 2021
3D Systems, Jabil MEX system
Aston Martin, Domin 3D-printed suspension
Desktop Metal, Uniformity Labs 6061 aluminum for MJT
America Makes, Girls Scouts of America STEM education with AM

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Heraus, University of Graz Amorphous alloy implants
Aston Martin, Domin, University of Cranfield AM suspension system
AM Ventures, KGAL Investment Management Funding for AM startups
ExOne, Ford Motor Company 6061 aluminum for BJT
Ingersoll Machine Tools, Bell Textron Helicopter rotor blade tooling
April 2021
ASTRO, U.S. Army Large metal AM system
Arfona, Dentulu, Impress3D Teeth and dentures
Covestro, GeBioM Custom insoles
Authentise, Hexagon Industrialization of AM
May 2021
UBQ Materials, Plastics App Recycled plastic filament
Block Research, Zaha Hadid Architects, Incremental3D Bridge
Lamborghini, Carbon Luxury car parts
June 2021
3D Systems, Collplant Bioprinted soft tissue
Replique, Miele Vacuum cleaner accessories
Volkswagen, Siemens Scaling metal AM production
Rodin Cars, 3D Systems Metal gearbox
July 2021
Nano Dimension, Hensoldt 3D-printed electronics
AM Global, Randerath Aviation AM Center
3YOURMIND, Naval Information Warfare Center Distributed manufacturing
Rawlings, Carbon Baseball glove inserts
Hyperion Metals, EOS Low-carbon titanium powder
Pinarello, Materialise Lightweight bike seat clamps
August 2021
Adidas, Marcolin Group Sports sunglasses
ORNL, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Nuclear reactor parts
BASF, Xuberance AM center
Xerox, Castor Software to analyze AM parts
Headmade Materials, MIMplus Polymer-coated metal
Etihad Engineering, EOS, Baltic3D Aircraft interiors
GE Research, UC Berkeley, University of South Alabama Extract carbon dioxide
September 2021
Luxexcel, Optiswiss Commercialize eyewear
GE Renewable Energy, Fraunhofer, Voxeljet Large-scale sand printing
Envisiontec, Covestro Tooling/industrial applications
October 2021
Avio Aero, GE Additive, BEAMIT Group Aircraft engine parts
Stanford University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Vaccine delivery system
Digital Metal, Etteplan BJT applications
Lotus Engineering, Hope Technology, Renishaw Track bike for Olympics
Honda, WASP Clay models of motorcycle
Aubert & Duval, Eponential Technologies Industrialization of AM
Proponent, Materialise Aircraft MRO

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

November 2021
AddUp, PostProcess Technologies Finishing AM parts
Advanced Laser Materials, Arkema Carbon-neutral polymer PBF
Metalpine, EOS New alloys
ABS, ConocoPhillips, Sembcorp Marine, 3D Metalforge Oil tanker parts
December 2021
Vertico, MAI International Concrete 3D printing robots
Solukon, Authentise MES post-processing
COBOD, CEMEX Concrete structures
January 2022
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Heidelberg University Blue laser diodes
Primaeam Solutions, Materialise AM facility in India
Sturdy Cycles, Headmade Materials, Element22 Titanium bike parts
Civan Lasers, Smart Move Laser welding
February 2022
SLM Solutions, Assembrix Remote monitoring system
Airbus, Safran Hybrid AM process
SINTEF (six company consortium) AM for maritime industry
SLM Solutions, Assembrix Remote printing functionality
March 2022
Sennheiser, Heraeus Amloy Technologies Producing metal AM earphones
Cirify Labs, Natural Machines Platform for AM medication
Other groups and In many countries, AM professionals have come to together to create
associations groups and associations. The goal of most of them is to promote the
development and adoption of AM.
Association name Country Website
Additive Manufacturing Association of India www.amsi.org.in
India
Additive Manufacturing Green Trade U.S. www.amgta.org
Association
Additive Manufacturing UK UK www.am-uk.org.uk
Additive & 3D Manufacturing Spain www.addimat.es
Technologies Association of Spain
Advanced Manufacturing Institute Israel www.advm.org.il
Alberta Additive Manufacturing Network Canada www.albertaamn.com
AM Technical Community U.S. www.sme.org/engage/communities/addi
tive-manufacturing-community
AMable Europe www.amable.eu
Association for Additive Manufacturing U.S. my.mpif.org/MPIF/Associations/AMAM
Associazione Italiana Tecnologie Italy www.aita3d.it
Additive
Canada Makes Canada www.canadamakes.ca
Collaborative Programme in Additive South Africa www.cpam.technology
Manufacturing (CPAM)
Dansk AM Hub Denmark www.am-hub.dk/en
Finnish Additive Manufacturing Finland www.fame3d.fi/about
Ecosystem
France Additive France www.franceadditive.tech
Hong Kong 3D Printing Association Hong Kong www.hk3dpa.org/en/hk3dpa
Japan 3D Printing Industrial Technology Japan www.3dprint.or.jp
Association
National Additive Manufacturing U.S. www.additivemfg.org
Association
RApid Prototyping and Innovative Slovenia www.rapiman.net
MAnufacturing Network

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Association name Country Website

Rapid Product Development Association South Africa www.rapdasa.org
of South Africa
Shanghai Additive Manufacturing China www.samafb.org
Association
Swiss Additive Manufacturing Group Switzerland www.swissmem.ch/en/products-
services/networking/specialist-
groups/swiss-additive-manufacturing-
group
Taiwan Aerospace Additive Taiwan www.taamia.org.tw
Manufacturing Industry Association
Technology Research Association for Japan www.trafam.or.jp
Future Additive Manufacturing
Turkish Additive Manufacturing Turkey www.additiveturkey.org
Association
Corporations, government agencies, universities, and others have

established AM centers of excellence. As with professional associations, the
aim is to promote the development and adoption of AM. Some centers
focus on developing a segment of AM. Many of the centers of excellence
from around the world are listed in the following table.
Center of excellence Lead Country Website

3D Printing and Digital HP Spain www.hp.com
Manufacturing Center of
Excellence
Additive Manufacturing ASTM U.S. www.amcoe.org
Center of Excellence International
Additive Manufacturing Australian Australia www.amhub.net.au
Hub Manufacturing
Technology
Institute Limited
Advanced Additive 3D Systems Italy www.3dsystems.com
Manufacturing Center
Advanced Manufacturing Department of Philippines amcen.dost.gov.ph
Center Science and
Technology
Advance Manufacturing Siemens Singapore new.siemens.com/sg/en/products/se
Transformation Centre rvices/industry/amtc.html
Centre for Additive Layer University of UK emps.exeter.ac.uk/engineering/resea
Manufacturing Exeter rch/etg/centres/calm
Centre for Additive University of UK www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/grou
Manufacturing Nottingham ps/cfam
Center of Excellence Arkema France www.arkema.com
National Additive Nanyang Singapore www.namic.sg
Manufacturing Innovation Technological
Cluster Singapore University
National Center for Union Ministry of India www.meity.gov.in
Additive Manufacturing Electronics and
Information
Technology
National Center for Auburn University U.S. www.eng.auburn.edu/research/cente
Additive Manufacturing rs/additive/index
Excellence
National Centre for Manufacturing UK ncam.the-mtc.org
Additive Manufacturing Technology
Centre
TechCenter Additive Thyssenkrupp Germany www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/stories/te
Manufacturing chcenter-additive-manufacturing--
new-opportunities-for-industries
TWI Innovation Centre for TWI UK www.twi-global.com/innovation-
Additive Manufacturing network/innovation-centres/additive-
manufacturing-ic
W.M. Keck Center for 3D University of U.S. keck.utep.edu
Innovation Texas at El Paso

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AM standards Several national and international standards development organizations

(SDOs) are addressing the development of AM standards. ASTM
International and the International Standards Organization (ISO) have
accomplished the most to date.
SDOs in the U.S. that create AM standards include the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), American Welding Society (AWS), and
Underwriter Laboratories (UL). Globally, they include the Association of
German Engineers (VDI), British Standards Institution (BSI), German
Institute for Standardization (DIN), Norwegian truth (DNV), and SAE
International. SDOs are expanding their AM efforts, which is good, but it
could lead to duplicate or conflicting standards, causing challenges for
the industry. The Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative,
discussed in a following section, aims to coordinate standards
development across participating SDOs.
ASTM Committee F42 ASTM International Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing

by John Slotwinski and Pat Picariello Technologies was formed in 2009. Its goal is to develop consensus
standards on AM across multiple industrial sectors. As of January 2022,
the committee consisted of more than 1,000 individual members in 36
countries. About 30% of the members are located outside the U.S. The
right to vote on proposed standards requires membership in F42, but
participation in meetings and discussions does not.
The range of F42 technical subcommittees continues to expand. In 2021, a

subcommittee on Data (F42.08) was created. Others include Test Methods
(F42.01), Design (F42.04), Materials and Processes (F42.05),
Environmental Health and Safety (F42.06), Applications (F42.07), and
Terminology (F42.91). The final subcommittee is the U.S. Technical
Advisory Group (TAG) to the International Organization for
Standardization Technical Committee (ISO/TC) 261 on Additive
Manufacturing (F42.95). TAG develops the official U.S. response to any
standards up for vote within ISO/TC 261. This coordination helps the two
organizations ensure compatible and complementary standards activities.
As of January 2022, ASTM International had published 33 AM industry

standards. The following table provides published standards on AM from
ASTM International and the partnership between ASTM and ISO.
Standard Title
F2924-14 Standard specification for additive manufacturing titanium-6
aluminum-4 vanadium with powder bed fusion
F2971-13 Standard practice for reporting data for test specimens prepared by
additive manufacturing
F3001-14 Standard specification for additive manufacturing titanium-6
aluminum-4 vanadium ELI (extra low interstitial) with powder bed
fusion
F3049-14 Standard guide for characterizing properties of metal powders used
for additive manufacturing processes
F3055-14a Standard specification for additive manufacturing nickel alloy (UNS
N07718) with powder bed fusion
F3056-14e1 Standard specification for additive manufacturing nickel alloy (UNS
N06625) with powder bed fusion
F3091/F3091M-14 Standard specification for powder bed fusion of plastic materials
F3122-14 Standard guide for evaluating mechanical properties of metal
materials made via additive manufacturing processes
F3177-21 Additive manufacturing—General principles—Fundamentals and
vocabulary

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Standard Title
F3184-16 Standard specification for additive manufacturing stainless steel
alloy (UNS S31603) with powder bed fusion
F3187-16 Standard guide for directed energy deposition of metals
F3213-17 Standard for additive manufacturing—Finished part properties—
Standard specification for cobalt-28 chromium-6 molybdenum via
powder bed fusion
F3301-18a Standard for additive manufacturing—Post processing methods—
Standard specification for thermal post-processing metal parts made
via powder bed fusion
Standard specification for titanium alloys via powder bed fusion
Specification for AlSi10Mg with powder bed fusion—Laser beam
F3413-19 Guide for additive manufacturing—Design—Directed energy
deposition
F3434-21 Additive manufacturing—Qualification principles—Installation,
operation and performance (IQ/OQ/PQ) of powder bed fusion—
Laser beam equipment
F3439-21 Additive manufacturing—Finished part properties—Assessment of 3
orientation and location dependence of mechanical properties for
metal parts
F3466-21 Additive manufacturing of metals—Qualification principles—Part 2:
Qualification of machine operators for powder bed fusion—Laser
beam
F3500-21 Additive manufacturing of metals—Qualification principles—Part 1:
General qualification of machine operators
F3529-21 Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Guide for design for
material extrusion processes
ISO/ASTM52900-15 Standard terminology for additive manufacturing—General
principles—Terminology (Process terms and definitions from this
standard have been fully adopted in the Wohlers Report.)
ISO/ASTM52915-16 Standard specification for additive manufacturing file format (AMF)
version 1.2
ISO/ASTM52901-16 Standard guide for additive manufacturing—General principles—
Requirements for purchased AM parts
ISO/ASTM52910-18 Additive manufacturing—Design—Requirements, guidelines and
recommendations
ISO/ASTM52902-19 Additive manufacturing—Test artifacts—Geometric capability
assessment of additive manufacturing systems
ISO/ASTM52907-19 Additive manufacturing—Feedstock materials—Methods to
characterize metallic powders
ISO/ASTM52904-19 Additive manufacturing—Process characteristics and performance—
Practice for metal powder bed fusion process to meet critical
applications
ISO/ASTM52921-13 Standard terminology for additive manufacturing—Coordinate
(2019) systems and test methodologies
ISO/ASTM52903-20 Additive manufacturing—Material extrusion-based additive
manufacturing of plastic materials—Part 1: Feedstock materials
ISO/ASTM52915-20 Specification for additive manufacturing file format (AMF) version 1.2
ISO/ASTM52942-20 Additive manufacturing—Qualification principles—Qualifying
machine operators of laser metal powder bed fusion machines and
equipment used in aerospace applications
ISO/ASTM52941-20 Additive manufacturing—System performance and reliability—
Acceptance tests for laser metal powder bed fusion machines for
metallic materials for aerospace application
Source: ASTM International
In January 2022, more than 60 work items were under development. They
are the first steps toward drafting new standards or revising existing ones.
Among them are specifications for finished part properties, determination
of particle and chemical emission, and control and qualification of laser-
based PBF. Feedstock specifications and a guide on designing for MEX
were also under development. In close collaboration with ISO/TC 261,
more than 25 additional work items are being addressed.
The F42 committee met virtually in February 2021. The annual meeting is
March 2022 at Colorado School of Mines, jointly with ISO/TC 261.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
ISO/TC 261 ISO Technical Committee 261 on Additive Manufacturing (ISO/TC 261)
by Christian Seidel was established in 2011. It is an important committee for standards
development and representation is worldwide. The committee has a
unique partnership with the ASTM Committee F42 on Additive
Manufacturing Technologies. As of January 2022, 34 standards were
being developed.
The ISO/TC 261 committee includes seven approved working groups (WG)
and joint working groups (JWG).
Reference Title or Working Group Example projects

WG 1 Terminology ISO/ASTM 52900-21 Additive
manufacturing—General principles—
Fundamentals and vocabulary
WG 2 Processes, systems, and ISO/ASTM TS 52930:2021 Additive
materials manufacturing—Qualification principles—
Installation, operation, and performance
(IQ/OQ/PQ) of laser-based PBF equipment
WG 3 Test methods and quality ISO/ASTM DIS 52902:2021 Additive
specifications manufacturing—Test artifacts—Geometric
capability assessment of additive
manufacturing systems
WG 4 Data and design ISO/ASTM CD TR 52918 Additive
manufacturing—Data formats—File format
support, ecosystem, and evolutions
WG 6 Environment, health, and ISO/ASTM DIS 52931 Additive manufacturing
safety of metals—Environment, health, and safety—
General principles for use of metallic
materials
JWG 10 Additive manufacturing in ISO/ASTM 52941:2020 Additive
aerospace applications – manufacturing—System performance and
joint with ISO/TC 44/SC 14 reliability—Acceptance tests for laser-based
PBF machines for metallic materials for
aerospace application
JWG 11 Additive manufacturing for ISO/ASTM FDIS 52925 Additive
plastics – joint with ISO/TC manufacturing of polymers—Qualification
61/SC 9 principles—Classification of part properties
Source: ISO/TC 261
ISO/TC 261 made excellent progress in 2021 and announced that more
standards had reached key development milestones than in any previous
year. In total, 15 documents were either published in 2021 or scheduled
for publication by the end of Q1 2022. The commitment of the working
group leaders, project leaders, and support staff was critical to success. All
documents were developed under the partnership agreement between ISO
and ASTM International. These standards are included in the ISO/ASTM
529XX-series, indicative of the high level of international consensus. The
new documents complement existing standards and cover topics including
qualification, non-destructive testing, data, design, finished part
properties, and test artifacts. A revised version of the AM terminology
standard (ISO/ASTM 52900) was published in 2021.
Starting in 2021, users may use standard support packages accessed

through the committee chairman. The purpose of this consulting service is
to guide users through the international standardization landscape. To
ensure that ISO/TC 261 identifies and addresses industry needs effectively,
the management team is expanding to include leading business
development experts. This is planned to take place at the 2022 spring
committee meeting in Golden, Colorado.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AM Standardization America Makes and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
established the Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative
Collaborative
by Kevin Jurrens (AMSC) in 2016. Its aim is to coordinate and accelerate the development
of AM standards and specifications consistent with the needs of the AM
community.
The AMSC was launched following two planning meetings involving a

broad cross section of AM stakeholders. It seeks to address increased
coordination and communication challenges caused by a growing number
of standards developing organizations (SDOs) writing AM standards. The
AMSC supports the continued growth of the AM industry by reaching
consensus on the needs and priorities of standards. It also identifies gaps
in existing activities and encourages SDOs to develop standards.
In June 2018, the AMSC issued the second version of its Standardization
Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing. It was developed with contributions
from hundreds of subject matter experts from industry, government, and
academia. The roadmap identifies SDOs involved in AM and lists published
standards and activities in progress. It also identifies gaps that, if filled,
would help grow the AM industry.
The first version of the standardization roadmap was released in February

2017 and identified 88 gaps in standards. The second version identified 93
gaps. Of the identified gaps, 18 were categorized as high priority, 51 as
medium priority, and 24 as low priority. Before standards development
could proceed, R&D is expected for 65 of the identified gaps.
The AMSC continues to engage with SDOs, industry sectors, and AM

experts to track progress against standards gaps and to refine the
roadmap. Periodic updates are provided to the community through
progress reports and topical meetings. Further details of AMSC activities
can be found at www.ansi.org/standards-coordination/collaboratives-
activities/additive-manufacturing-collaborative.
AM activities AM is a key technology at the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA). It supports missions and commercial
at NASA partnerships in aeronautics, science, and space exploration. AM activities
by John Vickers span dozens of research, education, and operational projects. Areas
include computational modeling, design, materials, processes,
certification, and flight products across all technology readiness levels.
NASA’s Rapid Analysis and Manufacturing Propulsion Technology project

is focused on using AM to improve the performance of liquid rocket
engines. NASA partnered with Auburn University’s National Center for
Additive Manufacturing Excellence to 3D print the rocket part, shown in
the following image, using a directed energy deposition (DED) machine
from DM3D Technology. The nozzle weighs 1,820 kg (4,000 lbs) and was
built over a period of several months. It took less than half the time
compared to traditional manufacturing.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Rocket engine nozzle, courtesy of NASA

and DM3D Technology
NASA’s In-Space Manufacturing project is focused on demonstrating AM in

a microgravitational environment. The project is developing AM
technologies to print electronics, sensors, and metal parts. Additional
research is being done to recycle feedstock and operate in a lunar
environment. In August 2021, NASA and Redwire, which acquired Made In
Space in July 2020, launched an experiment to the International Space
Station. The project was designed to demonstrate 3D printing materials
that simulate soil found on planetary bodies such as the Moon.
NASA initiated the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction

Technology project to demonstrate a 3D printing infrastructure on the
Moon. Simulated lunar material was used as feedstock. Infrastructure
includes landing pads, shelters, roadways, and blast shields.
As part of NASA's Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog

project, ICON printed a structure known as Mars Dune Alpha. It simulates a
Mars habitat to support long-term crewed space missions.
3D-printed Mars Dune Alpha habitat,

courtesy of NASA and ICON
NASA has released its Additive Manufacturing Requirements for

Spaceflight Systems standard titled NASA-STD-6030. It establishes design,
fabrication, and testing requirements for space flight hardware. It includes
crewed, un-crewed, robotic, and other spacecraft programs. This is NASA’s
first standard to provide specific design requirements for certifying AM
parts.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AM in the U.S. AM development in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) continued to

advance rapidly in 2021. All services and the Office of the Secretary of
Department Defense (OSD) increased its efforts in R&D and applications. Despite
of Defense increased investments and successful demonstrations, some gaps remain
by Matthew Friedell in DOD adoption of AM.
The U.S. Army team at Rock Island Arsenal announced it is building one of
the world’s largest metal 3D printers. The team of vendors creating the
system is being led by ASTRO America. Subcontractors include Ingersoll
Machine Tools, MELD Manufacturing, and Siemens. This effort, called the
Jointless Hull project, hopes to deliver a metal AM system capable of
printing an entire military vehicle chassis. It will have a 9.1 x 6.1 x 3.7 m
(30 x 20 x 12 ft) build volume.
CAD rendering of Jointless Hull metal AM system,

courtesy of U.S. Department of Defense
The U.S. Navy demonstrated its ongoing commitment to AM by awarding a

$20 million contract to Stratasys. Up to 25 F900 MEX systems will be
purchased. The systems will be used to produce end-use parts, tooling, and
training aids. The machines will be located at naval bases in the continental
U.S. and Japan.
The U.S. Marine Corps published Marine Corps Order MCO 4700.4 on the
use and integration of AM. It provides policy and procedures on AM best
practices and part approval. The Marine Corps also awarded a contract to
Houston Genesis Dimensions to deliver a large 3D printer for construction
projects.
The U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force continued investing in AM. The
focus to date has not been on end-use parts, mainly due to the intensive
quality assurance and testing requirements to secure flight-worthiness
certification. However, the Air Force has used AM to develop intricately
designed parts and systems for hypersonic vehicles. Topology optimization
(TO) and modeling of efficient computational fluid dynamic designs are an
important part.
OSD has published an AM strategy document, which sets clear goals and
focus areas for DOD. The document highlights the need for a secure and
robust digital infrastructure and industry standards for materials and 3D
printing systems.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
U.S. government- Federal agencies in the U.S. actively support AM research. Funding for the
widest variety of research topics comes from the National Science
sponsored R&D Foundation (NSF). NSF funds academic institutions and corporations.
by John Obielodan Other major sources of funding for AM research include the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), DOD, Department of Energy (DOE), and
Department of Commerce (DOC). Some awards are made through the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) programs.
National Science This section describes several NSF-funded projects. All were awarded in
Foundation 2021. Since most NSF projects are two- or three-year awards, this
summary represents only the most recent NSF projects. The 2020 and
2021 editions of the Wohlers Report include summaries of previously
awarded NSF projects, most of which are still active.
Baylor University and the University of Tennessee received a collaborative

award to maximize the mechanical performance of extruded polymer
composites. The universities are investigating the size, orientation, and
distribution of reinforcing fibers and internal voids that define its
microstructure.
Xun Liu at Ohio State University received a Faculty Early Career

Development Program (CAREER) award to investigate ultrasonically
assisted wire-arc AM of metal matrix nanocomposites. The project is
focused on solving the problem of agglomeration of nanoparticles in
metals during melting cycles by dispersing them using ultrasonic vibration.
The University of Utah and Georgia Tech Research Corp. received funding
to study physics-informed artificial intelligence (AI)-driven design and 3D
printing metal matrix composites. The project aims to use AI to discover
and optimize materials and manufacturing processes with a goal to reduce
deployment times and cost by 50%.
The University of Arkansas was awarded a grant award to develop a

microheater array PBF technology. The process will use a microheater
array close to the build surface to deliver a focused heat pattern to
selectively fuse powder particles. Potential benefits of the technology in
comparison to laser-based PBF include higher printing speeds, lower
power consumption, and reduced cost per part.
Mississippi State University and Duke University received a collaborative

award for research aimed at developing a new digital light processing
(DLP)-based vat photopolymerization (VPP) process. DLP printing will be
used with acoustic holography to accurately position micro/nanoparticles
in a polymer resin. The objective is to understand acoustic holography-
enabled AM to fabricate multi-functional composites containing high-
resolution and versatile patterns with diverse micro/nanoparticles. The
particles used include cellulose nanofibrils, carbon-based particles, and
living cells.
The University of Pittsburg received a grant to study grain refinement in

complex alloys made from dissimilar metal powders using AM. The project
will investigate grain growth kinetics and phase stability using machine
learning models coupled with microstructural and material
characterizations.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Arizona State University received a research award to develop a new metal

AM process. The process is based on localized pulsed electrodeposition
and will be used to control mechanical and electrical properties. The
project will develop a theoretical understanding nanoscale twins of metals
produced by localized pulsed electrodeposition using multi-physics
simulation combined with multi-scale experiments.
The University of California–San Diego received a research award to

develop a structured light monitoring system for metal AM. The goal is to
address a lack of in-process monitoring capabilities during printing. The
process uses a projector and camera to measure the height of features of a
part while it is being printed. Dimensional results will compare against
predefined values while printing.
Chai Ma at the Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station received a

CAREER grant to develop a new approach to improve density for ceramic
binder jetting (BJT). A tailored powder feedstock and powder bed will be
evaluated.
Rayne Zhang at the University of California–Los Angeles received a

CAREER grant to develop the knowledge needed to support a new multi-
material AM process. The goal is a process that can rapidly generate
different structural and functional materials in a compact 3D layout. The
process is expected to have a high degree of precision and manufacturing
speed.
DOD, DOE, and DOC DOD actively supports R&D efforts in AM through several programs. They
include the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program, the
Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative Program, and the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Office of Naval
Research, Army Research Laboratory, and Air Force Research Laboratory
also fund basic and applied research related to AM. Details on DOD-
funded programs can be found at dod.gov.
The following are summaries of SBIR and STTR awards for 2021, funded
through the DOD and DOE.
Coreform received a Phase I SBIR grant to develop high-performance,

computer-enabled and geometry-compliant lattice structures for 3D
printing and structural simulation. The work will deploy an isogeometric
solver to develop implicit lattice structures. This is expected to result in
near real-time modeling, simulation, and slicing software for AM.
Raven 3D, the University of Oklahoma, Gerling Consulting, and Güdel

received a Phase I STTR award to develop a new AM method. It is known
as FiberQuill and uses scalable direct ink writing (DIW) to print epoxy-
coated continuous-carbon fiber. It will be used to produce high strength-
to-weight ratio aircraft parts.
Innosek and the University at Buffalo received a Phase I STTR grant to

research the feasibility of using AM to create lightweight aircraft parts.
This will be done using ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene
(UHMWPE) material. Prior studies have shown that the 3D printing of

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
UHMWPE is possible but requires optimization. The research aims to

create a thermally controlled environment within a PBF machine to
commercialize 3D-printed UHMWPE.
Addiguru and EWI received a Phase I STTR award to develop and validate
an intelligent process monitoring system for metal PBF. It combines in-
situ monitoring with AI software to detect defects and provide feedback to
help correct flaws during the build process. The aim is to create a closed-
loop or self-healing system.
Exquadrum received a Phase I SBIR grant to integrate previously

demonstrated technologies into a solid-fuel rocket with the capabilities of
controlling the thrust. The production cost is expected to remain low by
using AM.
The DOC provides R&D opportunities in AM through several programs.

Details on DOC-funded programs can be found at doc.gov.
National Institutes NIH is one of the primary supporters of biomedical research in AM.
of Health Among the themes for NIH funding are biofabrication and the production
of orthopedic implants, coatings, and scaffold structures for tissue
engineering. The following are some of the projects awarded by NIH in
2021.
Actuated Medical received a fast-track SBIR award in partnership with the

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Akron Children’s Hospital. It was
used to develop a 3D printing processes to manufacture better fitting
masks and nasal prongs for delivering non-invasive ventilation to pediatric
patients.
Phase received a Phase I SBIR award to develop an AM method based on

liquid dielectrophoresis. The technique is used to shape uncured
polydimethylsiloxane into cross sections that are cured and bonded in
succession to build 3D microfluidic devices. This is a unique 3D printing
process that offers the printing of materials, such as elastomers, at a high
resolution and with minimal post-processing.
Virginia Commonwealth University received funding to develop a novel

process for generating osteogenic nanostructures on the surface of 3D-
printed Ti-6Al-4V implants. A greater understanding of the process will
support the production of tailored nanoscale surface features suitable for
recognized osteoblasts.
U.S. national The following three national laboratories are active in AM research and
development. R&D conducted at national laboratories is a mechanism for
laboratories stimulating technology developments and advancements in the U.S.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Oak Ridge National The Advanced Manufacturing Office of the U.S. DOE established the
Laboratory Manufacturing Demonstration Facility (MDF) at ORNL in 2012. The
by Kyle Saleeby and facility performs early-stage research with the goal of advancing
Thomas Feldhausen manufacturing technologies, including AM. More than 34,000 individuals
and 5,800 companies have visited the MDF, which has conducted 219
collaborative research projects.
The MDF research portfolio covers many topics including AM, machining
processes, composite materials, and concrete manufacturing. A new
polymer feedstock manufacturing chain has been established for
sustainable production and circular economy research. The MDF is
investigating the next generation of hybrid-manufacturing equipment. A
comprehensive metrology and materials characterization laboratory
supports cross-disciplinary research.
As a DOE user facility, the MDF engages in more than 30 industrial and
academic collaborations annually. This partnership arrangement supports
cooperative development of advanced manufacturing capabilities,
equipment, and processes, which directly impact the U.S. manufacturing
economy. Recent partnerships have resulted in the development of novel
manufacturing equipment, including the SkyBAAM cable-suspended
concrete printer and the MVP Reactive Additive Manufacturing system for
thermoset materials.
The MDF is a core partner and technical collaborator with many U.S.
advanced manufacturing institutions. They include America Makes, the
IACMI Composites Institute, and the Cybersecurity Manufacturing
Innovation Institute. In rapid response to the pandemic, MDF and the
ORNL Carbon Fiber Technology Facility provided tooling, molds, and
personal protective equipment (PPE).
Rapidly produced injection mold for a

face shield frame, courtesy of ORNL
ORNL partnered with Mazak through DOE’s Collaborative Research and

Development Agreement to design and develop the Mazak VTC-800G/SR
AM HWD hybrid system. The machine is among the largest hybrid DED
manufacturing platforms. It is capable of processing parts up to 1,500 mm
(59 in) in length and 500 mm (19.7 in) in diameter. The system combines
wire-fed laser-based metal AM and conventional 5-axis machining
capabilities. Six axes of motion support the production of large-scale
geometrically complex parts.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Lawrence Livermore Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) focuses on AM with an

National Laboratory emphasis on national security. AM activities at LLNL have expanded to
by Chris Spadaccini and include full-scale operation of the Advanced Manufacturing Laboratory
Manyalibo Matthews (AML) and a new polymer AM pilot production facility. Work at LLNL
includes new process and materials development and advancing an
understanding and performance of metal AM. It includes the
development of new control algorithms, qualification methods, modeling
and simulation, optimization and design, and machine learning.
The AML facility is in the Livermore Valley Open Campus (LVOC) outside of
LLNL’s main security perimeter. It expands across 1,300 m2 (14,000 ft2)
and features a reconfigurable wet chemistry lab and a dry instrument lab.
Locating the AML in the LVOC makes it easier to partner with industry and
academia, both for R&D and technology transfer. It is equipped with AM
systems developed in-house and commercial machines used for joint
projects.
LLNL has successfully transferred several AM processes to industry,

including projection micro-stereolithography, direct-ink writing, and
electrophoretic deposition. Work on several new projects is underway.
Volumetric AM, which uses computed axial lithography, has been a recent
focus with university and industry partners. Other projects involve work in
metal jetting, parallel two-photon polymerization, and early-stage AM
concepts.
In 2021, a team from LLNL developed a new functional application area for
AM and architected materials known as cellular fluidics. The 3D-printed
microscale porous cellular architectures were inspired by plants and the
way they absorb and distribute water and nutrients. The AM structures are
designed to act as passive fluid transport pathways, eliminating the need
for pumps. The new AM-enabled technology may be applied to fields
inducing biomedical technologies and chemical reactors.
Images of spiral-like 3D fluid pathway achieved by controlling

local strut diameter, courtesy of LLNL
Sandia National Sandia is a multi-mission laboratory managed and operated by National

Laboratories Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, a wholly owned
P. Randall Schunk subsidiary of Honeywell International. Operating under contract from the
DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration, Sandia has a long
history of pioneering AM technology development.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In the mid-1990s, Sandia developed laser engineered net shaping (LENS),

and Robocast, an extrusion-based, direct-write process for 3D ceramic
parts. Both technologies have been commercialized. Sandia has conducted
AM R&D projects valued at about $25 million, with an emphasis on 1)
analysis-driven design, 2) materials reliability, and 3) multi-material AM.
Lattice metamaterials offer unique properties not obtainable from

traditional bulk materials. They increase the capability of single-material
3D printers by producing parts with an extended range of material
properties. Interpenetrating lattices (ILs), a new type of metamaterial
developed at Sandia, are made by interweaving two or more sublattices.
This results in unique multi-body and interface-controlled properties that
are impossible to achieve with traditional materials or lattices. Contact
between the two sublattices can be caused by elastic, plastic, or fracture
deformations, or by foreign objects.
ILs can be used to sense environmental changes because the extent of IL

contact can be monitored using electrical resistivity measurements. This
makes it possible to obtain part structural health diagnostics for the entire
material volume. Traditional sensing materials tend to have poor
structural performance. ILs offer excellent strength-to-weight ratio and
similar toughness compared to composites. ILs are suitable for lightweight
structures, padding, and armor. The extent and location of any damage can
be measured, as shown in the following image and plot.
Computer-aided design model of an octet and rhombic dodecahedron

interpenetrating cell (left) and plot of damage measured using the
electrical resistivity between the two lattices as a function of indenter
displacement (right), courtesy of Sandia National Laboratories
Rapid anomaly and defect detection in AM lattices and other complex

structures is required to assess and assure part quality. Sandia researchers
have created an anomaly detection algorithm called Feature-based
Anomaly Detection System (FADS). The algorithm leverages pretrained
convolutional neural networks and machine learning to identify
characteristics outside the expected range. This approach relies on
systematic imaging, which is non-destructive and easy to obtain. FADS has
been used successfully to reveal textural differences in the surfaces of AM
lattices that were made using different process parameters. It shows
promise as a tool to inspect complex AM structures.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Government- Research, innovation, and development in the European Union (EU) are
supported by public funding at various levels. Funding agencies include
sponsored R&D the European Commission, the 27 member states of the EU, and regional
in Europe bodies within these countries. The EU has approved a special economic
by Giorgio Magistrelli recovery package called NextGenerationEU in response to the COVID-19
crisis.
The EU has funded AM research projects since the late 1980s. More than
€400 million was awarded between 2007 and 2021. Some non-EU member
countries can participate in EU-funded R&D projects. They include
accession countries, candidate countries, potential candidates, members of
the European Free Trade Association, and European Neighborhood Policy
members.
The following is a list of EU-funded AM projects as of February 2022. It

highlights ongoing European R&D and education efforts in AM.
Name Years Description €M Coordinator Country

3D-NANOFOOD 2020–2024 Advancing personalized foods for seniors through 0.15 INL Portugal
nanotechnology and 3D-printing-enhanced nutrition and flavors
3DPRINTED 2021–2022 AM food creation of tiramisù 0.05 Twissen/Natural Italy/Spain
TIRAMISÙ Machines
3DPT 2019–2022 3D printer technology of the future 0.17 BBS Germany
ACCESS-3DP 2020–2023 Art and creative craft enterprises for 3D printing 0.35 CMA-AURA France
ADAM^2 2020–2023 Analysis, design, and manufacturing using microstructures 3.4 BCAM Spain
ALADDIN 2020–2022 Integration of additive manufacturing in the health sector 0.22 AIMPLAS Spain
AMable 2017–2022 Support to SMEs and mid-caps for their individual uptake of AM 8.2 Fraunhofer Germany
Society
AMANECO 2019–2022 Assessment of AM limits for eco-design optimization in heat 1.5 Lortek Spain
exchangers
AMITIE 2017–2022 AM initiative for transnational innovation in Europe 0.9 University of France
Limoges
ANDCOM 2019–2022 4.0 didactic approaches in duty of developing Andragog’s 0.28 CWEP Poland
Competences
cmRNAbone 2020–2023 3D-printed matrix-assisted chemically modified RNAs bone 6.3 AO Research Switzerland
regenerative therapy for trauma and osteoporotic patients Institute Davos
DIGIMAN4.0 2019–2022 Digital manufacturing technologies for zero-defect industry 4.0 3.9 Danmarks Denmark
production Tekniske U.
DIMOFAC 2019–2023 Digital intelligent modular factories 19.1 CEA France
DOC-3D- 2018–2022 Development of ceramics for AM 3.5 Toulouse INP France
PRINTING
DESTINE 2020–2022 European design technicians league 0.3 Idonial Spain
EDM-ADDITIVE 2019–2022 New electrical discharge machining electrodes manufactured 0.24 Add North AB Sweden
with electrically conductive materials using AM
ENABLE 2018–2022 European network for alloys behavior law enhancement 2.3 Universite de France
Bordeaux
Grade2XL 2020–2024 3D printing method for high-performance large structures 9.7 M2I Netherlands
HLFC 4.0 2019–2022 Hybrid laminar fluid control 4.0 1 Adatica Spain
Engineering
imPURE 2020–2024 Injection molding repurposing for medical supplies enabled by 7.2 Ethnicon Greece
AM Metsovion
Polytechnion
INTEGRADDE 2018–2022 Intelligent, data-driven pipeline for manufacturing certified metal 17 Aimen Spain
DED parts
IP&IE 2020–2022 Generation 4C - communicative, critical, creative, and 0.2 EBW Germany
collaborate
LightMe 2019–2022 Open innovation ecosystem for upscaling production processes 12.9 Politecnico di Italy
of lightweight metal alloys Milano
MADAM 2021–2026 Modeling-assisted solid state materials development and AM 2.0 Helmholtz- Germany
Zentrum
Hereon Gmbh
MANUELA 2018–2022 AM using “metal pilot line” process 15.5 Chalmers Sweden
Master Strains 2020–2026 European master in advanced solid mechanics 3.0 Universite de France
Lille
MEMS 4.0 2017–2022 Additive micromanufacturing for plastic micro-electro- 2.5 EPFL Switzerland
mechanical systems

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Name Years Description €M Coordinator Country

MESIR 2019–2022 Manufacturing education for a sustainable fourth industrial 0.3 KTH Sweden
revolution
METABUILDING 2020–2023 Meta-clustering innovation ecosystem buildings 5.1 Nobatek/Inef4 France
MFILAMUXIAML 2021–2023 Metal flow in laser AM using X-ray imaging and machine 0.2 UCL UK
learning
MOAMMM 2020–2023 Multi-scale optimization for AM of fatigue-resistant shock- 3.5 Universite de Belgium
absorbing metamaterials Liege
MOnACO 2019–2022 Manufacturing of a large-scale AM component 1 TUHH Germany
MULTI-FUN 2020–2023 Enabling multi-functional performance through multi-material AM 9.2 LKR Austria
NATHENA 2018–2022 New AM heat exchanger for aerospace 1.5 Sogeclair France
Aerospace
NRWgoes.digital 2019–2022 Advanced training courses 0.15 Bezreg Germany
NUCOBAM 2020–2024 Nuclear components based on AM 4.0 CEA France
PADICTON 2019–2022 Part distortion, prediction, and design for minimized distortion in 0.75 TWI UK
polymer AM aerospace parts
PADUAR 2019–2022 Vocational training in AM 0.65 KPO Germany
PRE-ECO 2019–2024 New paradigm to re-engineering printed composites 1.47 Politecnico Di Italy
Torino
Print2fly 2019–2021 Printing aircraft at room temperature 0.2 Universiteit Netherlands
Twente
PULSATE 2020–2024 Fostering the PAN-European infrastructure for empowering 8.1 AIMEN Spain
SME’s digital competences in laser-based AM
R2P2 2020–2022 Networking for R&D of human-interactive and sensitive robotics 0.8 TU v Liberci Czech
using AM Republic
SAbyNA 2020–2024 Simple, robust, and cost-effective approaches to guide industry 6.1 Acondiciona- Spain
in the development of safer nanomaterials and nano-enabled miento
Tarrasense
products
SIRAMM 2019–2022 Eastern European twinning on structural integrity and reliability 0.8 UPT Romania
of advanced materials obtained through AM
STREAM 2019–2022 Simulation of turbulence and roughness in AM parts 0.6 CNRS France
TINKER 2020–2023 Cost- and resource-efficient sensor packaging for autonomous 10.2 PROFACTOR Austria
and self-driving cars
Toys4Humanity 2020–2022 Prototyping/AM of CAD-designed innovative toys for human 0.05 3DiTALY Italy
capabilities enhancement in preschool and school-age children
Source: Giorgio Magistrelli
Most EU projects have been funded through Horizon 2020, the European
framework program for research and innovation. The program allocated
more than €75 billion in project funding from 2014 to 2020. Horizon 2020
has been superseded by the Horizon Europe program, operating from
2021 to 2027, with funding of €95.5 billion.
Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway,

Serbia, and Turkey have operational association agreements in place to
participate in Horizon Europe. Association agreements at the ratification
phase have also been signed with Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Kosovo, and Ukraine.
Non-EU-funded AM initiatives are mainly located in southern and western

Europe, including France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Included are 27
national and 21 regional projects, as well as one transnational and one
transregional project. Several projects in Germany involve the Fraunhofer
ADDITIVE. The alliance includes 19 institutes focused on the development,
application, and implementation of AM production materials and
processes.
The German Machine Tool Builders Association funds industrial AM

projects. The Mechanical Engineering Industry Association supports its
members across the entire value chain. France Additive, formerly the
Association Française du Prototypage Rapide, advances AM through
collaboration of its French stakeholders. The French Alliance Industrie du
Futur drafted a national roadmap on AM.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Academic activities AM advancements are occurring at a rapid pace and have been
successfully applied in pharmaceuticals, food, and jewelry. The demand
and capabilities for healthcare devices and PPE during the pandemic highlighted AM
by Ismail Fidan capabilities and boosted R&D efforts. Researchers at many institutions of
higher education used AM to produce supplies for healthcare workers.
University research facilities delivered cutting-edge research and
innovative solutions.
Today’s university and college students will become the AM workforce of

tomorrow. Most engineering and science programs include AM and a
growing number are offering degree programs on the subject. Some
universities offer specialized courses and training opportunities in
ceramics, 3D-printed electronics, 4D printing, and multiple materials.
Students benefit from the knowledge and use of AM, and those who are
skilled in AM have good job opportunities. In response to this trend,
universities and colleges are growing in several areas of AM. They include
maker spaces, workforce development initiatives, degree programs, and
innovation institutes.
Research projects in metal AM and DfAM are increasing. In 2021, most

institutions used or developed DfAM solutions. Coupled with a sharp
increase in metal AM R&D, several institutions acquired metal AM systems.
The Ohio State University Center for Design and Manufacturing Excellence
installed its 10th metal printer in 2021, with an overall capability that
includes all seven ASTM/ISO process categories of metal and polymer AM.
Research innovations The pandemic caused global supply disruptions. AM provided relief by
offering a way to produce products rapidly. For example, the Additive
Manufacturing Institute of Science and Technology at the University of
Louisville produced 3,000 face shields daily for healthcare employees.
3D-printed face shields for the Dubai Police

Department, courtesy of Proto21
The University of Sydney partnered with GE Additive to establish a $25

million “factory of the future.” Its purpose is to boost AM innovation and
position the region at the heart of the latest trends in product development
and industrial production.
Researchers at the German University of Technology in Oman have

partnered with the COBOD and CEMEX construction firms. They claim to
have built the largest building with 3D-printed concrete walls. The 195-m2
(2,100-ft2) home was constructed in the capital of Oman. The home has
three bedrooms, three bathrooms, a living room, kitchen, and reception
area.
Researchers at California State University–Los Angeles and Eskisehir

Osmangazi University in Turkey have developed a low-cost functional
wire-arc AM 3D printer. The researchers claim the system can be made for

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
$1,000. Researchers at Zhejiang University, China have announced a new

edible plant-based gel, which can be used to 3D print meat-like foods.
These meat alternatives contain soy protein, pea protein, and wheat
gluten. The meat alternative has the nutritional value of animal protein
according to the researchers.
The following pages present summaries of activity from academic

institutions worldwide active in AM education and/or R&D. Included are
136 academic institutions, which are listed alphabetically by region. Also,
16 research institutes are listed with a summary of their activities. This
compilation does not represent all AM efforts by academic and research
institutions worldwide.
The Americas Arizona State University: In Fall 2021, a new school was launched in the
Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering called the School of Manufacturing
Systems and Networks. Contact: Dhruv Bhate, [email protected]
Auburn University, Alabama: Activities include additive

nanomanufacturing and simulation- and AI-based qualification for
understanding internal and surface defects on fatigue behavior. Contact:
Nima Shamsaei, [email protected]
Binghamton University, New York: Capabilities include DED, PBF, and

hybrid manufacturing, composite and electronic materials, process-
structure-property-performance relationships; fatigue testing, multi-
physics modeling, and simulation. Contact: Fuda Ning,
[email protected]
Brigham Young University, Utah: Improving powder droplet interactions in

BJT; unlocking keys to increased ductility in polymer PBF; large-area
polymer AM for tooling; ultra-low stiffness gel fabrication. Contact: Nathan
Crane, [email protected]
California Polytechnic State University: Capabilities include metal PBF,

composite MEX, and various polymer and resin-based printing. Research
focuses on powder characterization, heat treatment, thin-wall structures,
process characterization, and optimization. Contact: Xuan Wang,
[email protected]
California State University, Northridge: Real-time object detection in 3D

printing; 3D bioprinting of pancreatic cancer models; AM metallic
biomaterials; PBF of novel 7075 aluminum. Contact: Bingbing Li,
[email protected]
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania: Laser-based PBF, BJT, aerosol

jet, laser powder stream, wire arc, and laser hot wire; material
development and characterization, process monitoring and control; AI
applied to AM; undergraduate minor and master’s AM programs. Contact:
Sandra DeVincent Wolf, [email protected]
Chippewa Valley Technical College, Wisconsin: TO versus generative

design; AM ecosystem; reverse engineering and 3D printing; AM
integration; low-volume production using AM. Contact: Mahmood
Lahroodi, [email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Robotic end effectors produced with VPP and MEX,

courtesy of Chippewa Valley Technical College
Clemson University, South Carolina: Modeling AM processes; in-situ

process monitoring and prognostics; embedding sensors into AM parts;
AM material testing; printing ceramics and sensors; graduate AM course.
Contact: Cameron Turner, [email protected]
Colorado School of Mines: Structural metals and ceramics; process sensing

and feedback control, qualification, and certification; alloy development;
solidification and phase transformations; laser physics; data informatics;
design optimization; process modeling. Contact: Craig Brice,
[email protected]
Colorado State University: AM orthopedic biomaterials; biomechanics;

tissue engineering; photopolymers; ceramics; composites; compliant
robotics; frontal polymerization; microfluidics; sensors, analytics, lab-on-a-
chip; Idea2Product lab for 3D printing. Contact: David Prawel,
[email protected]
Columbia University, New York: Food printing with laser cooking; layered
assembly of voxels; multi-material PBF. Contact: Hod Lipson,
[email protected]
Connecticut College of Technology: Applications of 3D printing for

designing and prototyping aerospace parts; applicability of 3D printing for
production parts. Contact: Karen Wosczyna-Birch, kwosczyna-
[email protected]
East Tennessee State University: AM lab with 15 MEX printers, two VPP
units for prototyping, and one plastic PBF printer for mold making, and
design optimization; expertise in 3D design, modeling, analysis, and
casting. Contact: David Zollinger, [email protected]
Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Canada: Simulation-driven laser PBF

process mapping for W, Mo, Fe, Ni, Ti, and Al alloys; automated flaw
detection in laser PBF parts using computed tomography and
convolutional neural network algorithms. Contact: Vladimir Brailovski,
[email protected]
Edmonds College, Washington: Project TEAMM collaborated with

Tennessee Tech University to host a virtual workshop that engaged
learners in new AM concepts and applications. Contact: Mel Cossette,
[email protected]
FLATE/FloridaMakes: Florida Advanced Technological Education Center at

FloridaMakes facilitates AM with new statewide curriculum standards for
all two-year technical programs in the state. Contact: Marilyn Barger,
[email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Georgia Institute of Technology: Metal and hybrid AM; materials

informatics for AM; cyber-manufacturing; large-area micro and
nanofabrication; VPP for micro-optics; two-photon VPP. Contact: David
Rosen, [email protected]
Georgia Southern University: Hybrid AM equipment; 3D bioprinting; low-

cost metal AM; PBF test bed design; cellular structures; high-performance
materials; in-situ quality control. Contact: Haijun Gong,
[email protected]
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis: Collaboration with

CCDC Army Research Laboratory and Praxair Surface Technologies on
developing thermal barrier coatings deposited on 3D-printed nickel
superalloy substrates. Contact: Jing Zhang, [email protected]
Jacksonville State University, Alabama: Metal PBF; metal matrix

composites; high temperature properties; surface property improvements.
Contact: Xiaoqing Wang, [email protected]
James Madison University, Virginia: Funded investigation of G-code-based

cyber attacks on part properties. Investigating properties of natural-fiber-
reinforced filaments. Contact: Rob Prins, [email protected]
Kansas State University, Aerospace Campus: AM courses on processes,

materials for space manufacturing applications. Contact: Mark Jackson,
[email protected]
McGill University, Canada: Laser PBF and DED for microstructure tailoring
and non-weldable alloys; powder production and holistic characterization;
lattices, part consolidation, AM redesign screening, manufacturability
analysis. Contacts: Mathieu Brochu, [email protected] and Yaoyao
Zhao, [email protected]
Milwaukee School of Engineering, Wisconsin: Rapid Prototyping

Consortium is supporting more than 47 companies, each representing a
different industry, all focused on applications developments,
benchmarking, and beta testing of new AM technologies. Contact: Vince
Anewenter, [email protected]
Missouri University of Science and Technology: Developing novel AM

process for unique materials, such as aluminum 7075, copper, glass,
composites, high entropy alloys, and functionally graded materials; AM for
automated repair; full online graduate program. Contact: Frank Liou,
[email protected]
North Carolina State University: Materials development for PBF;

automated finishing of metal AM parts; process simulation; medical
applications; custom implants. Contact: Ola Harrysson,
[email protected]
North Dakota State University: Developing and testing AM systems for

short- and long-fiber-reinforced composites with synthesized high-
performance thermoset resins and high-fiber volume fractions. Contact:
Chad A. Ulven, [email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Ohio State University: Installed 10th metal printer. Growth coincides with
establishment of a medical device printing program called M4 and growing
the AM team headcount by 200% in 2021. Contact: Ed Herderick,
[email protected] and Jacob Rindler, [email protected]
Polytechnique Montréal, Canada: Rapid non-planar AM of large aerospace

composites, multi-nozzle and multi-material printing of multi-functional
composites; multi-scale modeling. Contact: Daniel Therriault,
[email protected]
Purdue University Northwest, Indiana: Project NSF MANEUVER delivered

virtual reality (VR) modules for digital manufacturing instruction. Ongoing
engagement with Precision Metalforming Association for VR safety
training. Contacts: Magesh Chandramouli, [email protected] and James
Higley, [email protected]
Rochester Institute of Technology, New York: Liquid metal jetting (Xerox);

carbon composite AM (Impossible Objects); wire-feed hybrid AM; printed
electronics. Contact: Denis Cormier, [email protected]
Rutgers University, New Jersey: Laser PBF; metal AM; modeling;

simulation; digital twin; process monitoring; finish machining; laser
polishing of AM parts; wire-arc AM; microstructure tailoring; grain
refinement through collaborators; MEX 3D printing and bioprinting.
Contact: Tugrul Ozel, [email protected]
San Jose State University, California: EOS M 100 PBF is being used to
manufacture titanium hierarchical bone scaffolds and heat sinks. Contact:
Ozgur Keles, [email protected]
Titanium porous scaffold, courtesy

of San Jose State University
Somerset Community College, Kentucky: Applied AM research and

workforce education; expanding state-wide cloud manufacturing platform,
automated AM volume production, and AM certificate program into high
schools and community colleges. Contact: Eric N. Wooldridge,
[email protected]
Southern Methodist University, Texas: Development of robotized, laser-

based, wire and powder DED system; development of sensor-fusion-based
adaptive process control system to improve AM part quality. Contact: Wei
Tong, [email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Stanford University, California: Hybrid printing platforms using sound-,

light-, and heat-based multi-material printing techniques for medical
devices, which are in the phase of clinical translation. Contact: Yunzhi
Peter Yang, [email protected]
St. Mary's University, Texas: Biomedical devices; generative and TO of

drone structures; 3D printing using advanced sensitivity methods;
mechanical characterization of 3D-printed materials enhanced with stearic
acid/petroleum jelly. Contacts: Amber McClung, [email protected]
and Juan Ocampo, [email protected]
Tennessee Tech University: Fiber-reinforced AM; concrete printing; AM

workforce development; low-cost metal AM; wire-arc AM; multi-material
printing; quality control. Contact: Ismail Fidan, [email protected]
Document camera mount designed and fabricated at the

university’s maker space, courtesy of Robert Shelton,
iMakerSpace of Tennessee Tech University
Texas A&M University: Metal AM team developed an efficient process

optimization framework for laser-based PBF and DED processes to print
defect-free parts and functionally graded alloys. Contact: Ibrahim
Karaman, [email protected]
Texas State University: Applied AM research on atmospheric water

generation including new methods and materials for super-hydrophobic
surfaces. Contact: Bahram Asiabanpour, [email protected]
University of Akron, Ohio: Multi-material conformal AM; multi-scale micro-

VPP; ceramic MEX; 3D printing rubber and batteries; normal/shear force
sensors. Contact: Jae-Won Choi, [email protected]
University of Alberta, Canada: Plasma transfer arc AM; wire-arc AM; hybrid
AM; rapid solidification; metal/ceramic matrix for AM; AM alloy
development; laser PBF; MEX; AM for the energy and mining sector.
Contact: Ahmed Qureshi, [email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
University of Arkansas: Commercialization of swarm 3D printing platform;

continued development of microheater array powder sintering and MHz
inkjet. Contact: Wenchao Zhou, [email protected]
University at Buffalo, New York: 3D printing silica aerogel for thermal

insulation materials; 3D printing energetic materials; 3D printing
molecular ferroelectric metamaterials; 3D printing education. Contact: Chi
Zhou, [email protected]
University of Campinas (Unicamp), Brazil: New coworking and maker

space, which aims to support the development of spontaneous student
projects and encourage research and entrepreneurship. Contact: Eder
Socrates Najar Lopes, [email protected] or [email protected]
University of Connecticut: Electron microscopy of AM parts and powders;

thermophysical property measurements and rapid solidification studies
for processing-microstructure analysis. Contact: Rainer Hebert,
[email protected]
University of Florida: AM process development and modeling; printing soft

and biological materials; post-processing complex geometric features
made using superalloys. Contact: Hitomi Yamaguchi Greenslet,
[email protected]
University of Maine: Cellulose-based, bio-active inks; topology-based

lattice structure constructions; process, structure, properties, and
performance mapping. Contacts: Bashir Khoda, [email protected]
and Brett Ellis, [email protected]
University of Massachusetts Lowell: 3D printing metamaterials; multi-

material printing; bioprinting; elastomer printing; custom thermoplastic
printing. Contact: Christopher Hansen, [email protected]
University of New Brunswick, Canada: AM marine applications;

microstructure-sensitive design using AM process parameters; heat
treatment; advanced electron microscopy; in-situ alloy development.
Contact: Mohsen Mohammadi, [email protected]
University of North Carolina at Charlotte: Metrology for metal AM; in-

process monitoring; surface integrity measurements; relating surface
topography to subsurface defects; functionally related characterization of
surface finish of metal AM parts; ceramic AM. Contact: Harish Cherukuri,
[email protected]
University of North Texas: Center for Agile and Adaptive Additive

Manufacturing fosters innovative industry, academic, and government
partnerships through science, engineering, education, and training in AM.
Contact: Narendra B. Dahotre, [email protected]
University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Defect detection and simulation;

support structure optimization; fast process simulation; AM-oriented TO;
process-structure-property-performance modeling; metal alloy design and
development. Contact: Albert To, [email protected]
University of Southern California: Multi-scale and multi-material AM

processes; bioinspired AM structures; bone regeneration scaffolds; energy-
related functional devices; 3D-printed microfluidic devices. Contact: Yong
Chen, [email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
University of Texas at Austin: The Center for Additive Manufacturing and

Design Innovation was founded 2021 with a mission to advance AM
processes and foster innovation through research. Focus areas are AM
process control, selective laser flash sintering, multi-material PBF, reactive
extrusion, micro-PBF, micro-cold spray, visible light, and high viscosity
VPP. Contact: Carolyn Seepersad, [email protected]
University of Texas at El Paso: DRIVE AM knowledge-based education for

military readiness, K-PhD outreach and entrepreneurship; Global Test
Artifact Data Exchange Program. Contacts: Ryan B. Wicker,
[email protected] and Mireya Flores, [email protected]
University of Toledo, Ohio: Metal PBF and BJT of low- and high-
temperature shape memory alloys; functional polymers for machine tools;
powder and part characterization, fatigue and composites. Contact:
Mohammad Elahinia, [email protected]
University of Utah: Process-structure-property relationship modeling and

measurements; surface topography and tribology measurements; high-
strain-rate deformation experiments. Contact: Bart Raeymaekers,
[email protected]
University of Virginia: Fortus system from Stratasys installed. Contact:

Dwight Dart, [email protected]
University of Waterloo, Canada: National AM network with six other

universities; holistic optimization of AM processes for advanced materials
and applications; accelerated AM modeling. Contact: Ehsan Toyserkani,
[email protected]
Virginia Tech: Materials development and multi-physics modeling for

polymer AM processes; metal processes in additive friction stir, wire-arc
AM, BJT, PBF; multi-axis toolpaths; multi-material, multi-modal AM.
Contacts: Chris Williams, [email protected] and Michael Bortner,
[email protected]
Washington State University: Direct ink writing (DIW) of polymer

composites; closed-loop control of DIW; humidity-controlled DIW; wall slip
mechanisms in DIW; oxidation-driven DIW of liquid metals. Contact: Arda
Gozen, [email protected]
Western Carolina University, North Carolina: The Rapid Center with

industry-class AM capacity; engineering services to inventors and
companies. Contact: Patrick Gardner, [email protected]
Western University, Canada: Distributed recycling and AM for the circular

economy; open-source hardware, computer vision for smart AM; AM for
sustainable development; RepRap. Contact: Joshua Pearce,
[email protected]
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts: Feedstock powder and

wire development; cold spray and wire-arc AM; metal AM courses;
physics-informed AI for AM process modeling, optimization and control;
metal PBF. Contact: Danielle Cote, [email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Youngstown State University, Ohio: Uniquely equipped with many 3D

printers for metals, ceramics, polymers, and composites. Awarded several
grants from NASA and DOD to produce tooling molds, microelectronics,
and batteries. Contact: Pedro Cortes, [email protected]
Asia/Pacific Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand: Developing collaborative 3D

printing station and collaborative mobile 3D printers for large-scale AM;
3D printing for future factory laboratory development. Contact: Pisut
Koomsap, [email protected]
Coimbatore Institute of Technology, India: Developing cost-effective and

compact diagnosis tools for Retinopathy of Prematurity using multiple AM
technologies for a leading eye hospital; ophthalmological aids for surgical
practice of ophthalmologists. Contact: Rajesh Ranganathan,
[email protected]
Edith Cowan University, Australia: Investigating design, manufacturing,

and performance of lattice structures, mechanical properties, and
corrosion of AM titanium alloys. Contact: Laichang Zhang,
[email protected]
Griffith University, Australia: Materials synthesis, processing, and

characterization; multi-materials; medical devices; preclinical
assessments; national and international collaborations; AM curriculum.
Contact: Frank Alifui-Segbaya, [email protected]
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India: PBF and DED processes;

multi-scale modeling; process development and optimization; metal AM
applications. Contact: Arvind Kumar, [email protected]
Jaypee University of Engineering and Technology, India: Mechanical

properties of polymer-based porous bone scaffolds; cytotoxic properties of
calcium sulphate and polymer porous scaffolds. Contact: Yashwant Kumar
Modi, [email protected]
Jilin University and Tsinghua University Joint team, China: Nanoscale AM of

novel functional devices in micro-optics, microelectronics,
micromechanics, microfluidics, optoelectronics, sensing, biomimetics, and
biology. Contact: Hong-Bo Sun, [email protected]
KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, India: Joining 3D-printed parts with

adhesive bonding, friction stir welding, microwave welding, and friction
stir spot welding. Contacts: P. Arunkumar, [email protected] and Vivek Tiwary,
[email protected]
Marwadi University, India: Additives development for

polydimethylsiloxane in photopolymerization; Ta-Ti alloy characterization
for implant manufacturing; smart-foundry training and support of startups
using MEX. Contact: Sarang Pande,
[email protected]
National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research,

Chandigarh, India: Metal 3D printing of dental and orthopedic implants for
veterinary applications; development of smart materials for 4D printing of
thermoplastic composites. Contact: Prof. Rupinder Singh,
[email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
National Institute of Technology Uttarakhand, India: Research on medical

and geospatial AM applications; terrain modeling; physical models of
natural World Heritage Sites for conservation management. Contact: Sanat
Agrawal, [email protected]
National Institute of Technology Warangal, India: Corrosion and wear

properties of Al-Si samples printed from PBF system for aerospace
applications. Contact: Yennam Ravi Kumar, [email protected]
Nihon University, Japan: Optimized path design for continuous-fiber

composites; 3D printing metamaterials and new structures; numerical
simulation on MEX process. Contact: Masahito Ueda,
[email protected]
Osaka University, Japan: Unique lamella texture formation in Inconel 718

from PBF; enhanced radiation-resistant texture formation in tungsten by
laser-based PBF; and crack-resistant grain boundary engineering by PBF.
Contact: Ozkan Gokcekaya, [email protected]
RMIT University, Australia: Fundamental and applied research in TO,

materials, and manufacturing focused on bioengineering, aerospace, and
defense industries. Contact: Milan Brandt, [email protected]
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia: Cold spray for anti-

bacterial applications; simulation of PBF process; energy absorption of AM
structures; concrete printing; material characterization; laser cladding.
Contact: Suresh Palanisamy, [email protected]
Tsinghua University, China: Successfully fabricated a single crystal of

Inconel 738 superalloy and investigated the effects of a 90 kV electron-
beam gun on the PBF process. Contact: Feng Lin, [email protected]
University of Auckland, New Zealand: DfAM methodologies; triply periodic

minimal surface lattices; design automation for heat exchangers,
prosthetics, and splints; full-color printing; hybrid tools with conformal
cooling. Contact: Olaf Diegel, [email protected]
Aluminum and polymer fountain, courtesy

of the University of Auckland
Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia: AM in MEX; thermoplastic elastomer;

natural rubber; metal epoxy composite; hybrid mold; injection-molding
process; material properties; rapid tooling. Contact: Shayfull Zamree Abd
Rahim, [email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
University of Technology Sydney, Australia: 3D printing of metals,

polymers, large-format, multi-color, and multi-materials; hybrid AM and
computer numerical control (CNC); electronics printing; industrial and
public partnerships. Contact: Jon O'Neill, [email protected]
Waseda University, Japan: Thermal distortion reduction of metal PBF by

lattice; optimal lattice infill heat exchanger; optimal lattice infill stem; AM
powder damper; TO for AM. Contact: Akihiro Takezawa,
[email protected]
Xi’an Jiaotong University, China: Innovative research and applications of

3D printing for advanced plastics and their composites, including
polyether ether ketone (PEEK), carbon-fiber PEEK, and multi-functional
composites. Contact: Xiaoyong Tian, [email protected]
Europe, Middle Aalborg University, Denmark: A newly published book titled A guidebook
East, and Africa for the adoption of additive manufacturing in operations. Contact: Yang
Cheng, [email protected]
Aalto University, Finland: 4D printing; multi-materials; DfAM, medical

applications; smart parts; spare parts; 3D-printed optics; bio-based
renewable materials; concrete; ceramics. Contact: Mika Salmi,
[email protected]
Brunel University London, UK: Continuing to work on several European

Commission-funded projects; Arts and Humanities Research Council
(AHRC) funding to achieve net zero emission for wire-arc AM. Contact:
Eujin Pei, [email protected]
Central University of Technology, Free State, South Africa: Innovative

medical device manufacturer; company and startup support through the
newly funded Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) Medical Device
Additive Manufacturing Technology Demonstrator Project. Contact: Gerrie
Booysen, [email protected]
Cranfield University, UK: A multi-energy source process for wire-based

DED has shown independent control of layer height and width. Ti-6Al-4V
part with a deposited mass of 150 kg (330 lbs) was produced. Contact:
Stewart Williams, [email protected]
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands: Digital multi-material and

metamaterials design; fine art reproduction using AM; DfAM; 3D-printed
electronics; robot-assisted AM and soft robotics. Contact: Zjenja
Doubrovski, [email protected]
Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Turkey: Electron-beam and laser PBF;

process enhancement for stainless steels, titanium alloys, and difficult-to-
weld nickel superalloys; material characterization; process modeling;
DfAM; TO. Contact: Evren Yasa, [email protected]
Gazi University, Turkey: Volumetric melt pool modeling and in-situ

decomposition for Ti-6Al-4V phases in laser PBF; TO of flight-critical parts;
wire-arc AM process for closed-chambers. Contact: Oguzhan Yilmaz,
[email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel: High-performance materials for 3D

printing; 3D-printed ceramics, glass, hydrogels, elastomers, wood, drugs,
and multi-materials; 4D printing; printed electronics and optoelectronics;
water-soluble photoinitiators. Contact: Shlomo Magdassi,
[email protected]
Heriot-Watt University, UK: Microfluidic COVID-19 test swabs; driver

alertness wearable devices; new metal-coated processes for AM plastic
parts; new biodegradable resin for implants. Contact: Ferry Melchels,
[email protected]
Istanbul Technical University, Turkey: Metal BJT; PBF process

understanding; AM finite element analysis (FEA) modeling; MEX process;
sand printing; two AM graduate courses and two AM student clubs.
Contact: Emrecan Soylemez, [email protected]
KU Leuven, Belgium: Laser PBF of polymers, metals, and ceramics; wire-

arc AM; MEX; VPP; electronics and bioprinting; developing AM hardware;
combining additive and subtractive processing; integrated multi-sensory
monitoring systems. Contact: Brecht Van Hooreweder,
[email protected] and Ann Witvrouw,
[email protected]
Khalifa University, UAE: Published free design software called MSLattice

for generating 3D-printable functionally graded cellular materials and
structures based on triply periodic minimal surface. Contact: Rashid K. Abu
Al-Rub, [email protected]
Lancaster University, UK: Machine learning and artificial intelligence in

AM; DfAM; smart materials optimization; alloy development for PBF;
hybrid and multi-material; polymer development. Contact: Allan Rennie,
[email protected]
LUT University, Finland: Mechanical properties of metal PBF parts; wire-

based DED; AM sustainability; memory alloys; business models with AM;
simulation of PBF process. Contact: Ilkka Poutiainen,
[email protected]
Loughborough University, UK: DfAM; hybrid AM; custom medical devices;

print path control; AM textiles and PPE; product personalization; printed
electronics; 3D printing in art, sculpture, and heritage. Contact: Richard
Bibb, [email protected]
Lund University, Sweden: Industrial projects with Alfa Lava, Siemens,

Volvo, and Digital Metal; TO; lattice and foam-like structures; DfAM for
flexible structures. Contact: Axel Nordin, [email protected]
Machine Tool Institute in Elgoibar, Spain: AM area with five processes for
training, R&D projects with universities and technological centers, and
technology transfer to SMEs; bound metal deposition; laser cladding; PBF,
Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) from HP and MEX. Contact: Xabier Cearsolo,
[email protected]
Mid Sweden University, Sweden: Process and material development for

electron beam and polymer AM; leading national group with industrial
network; steel, functional powder, graphene, and tool steel. Contact: Lars-
Erik Rännar, [email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Middle East Technical University, Turkey: New graduate course on

generative design for digital manufacturing; concrete printing; implicit
design and slicing; rotary rectangular nozzle for MEX; electron-beam PBF
characterization. Contacts: Merve Erdal, [email protected] and Ulas
Yaman, [email protected]
National Technical University of Athens, Greece: Machine learning for PBF

multi-criteria optimization; PBF multi-material powder dispensing; part
redesign for AM; FEA of PBF part properties at layer scale. Contact:
George-Christopher Vosniakos, [email protected]
Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Norway: AM applications for

industrial design and architecture; developing AM methods for industry
and education. Contact: Steinar Killi, [email protected]
Politecnico di Torino, Italy: DfAM; process parameters optimization of AM

processes; advanced materials development; machine learning; monitoring
of AM processes. Contact: Luca Iuliano, [email protected]
Polytechnic of Leiria, Portugal: Master of science in direct digital

manufacturing (DDM); PhD in DDM in collaboration with University of
Minho starts February 2022. Contact: Joel Vasco, [email protected]
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy: Digital twin, DfAM, optimization of

metal PBF process, metal MEX, 4D printing by MEX, and shape memory
polymers. Contacts: Alberto Boschetto, [email protected] and
Luana Bottini, [email protected]
Stellenbosch University, South Africa: Micro-CT scanning for AM quality

improvement; structural integrity and effect-of-defect studies; biomimetic
DfAM; lattice structures; concrete printing; biomedical applications.
Contact: Anton du Plessis, [email protected]
Tampere University, Finland: Multi-disciplinary design optimization in AM

and DfAM; process-structure-property-performance relationships in metal,
polymer, and ceramic AM; wire-arc AM of stainless steels; smart
manufacturing in AM; AM industrialization. Contact: Iñigo Flores Ituarte,
[email protected]
Technical University of Denmark: Research on PBF, VPP, BJT, and

industrial adoption of AM; open architecture research platforms; multi-
material metal AM; photopolymer slurries; process, material, and
monitoring research. Contact: David Bue Pedersen, [email protected]
TU Wien, Austria: High-performance photopolymers with spinoff groups

including Cubicure, Incus, Lithoz, and UpNano. Contact: Jürgen Stampfl,
[email protected]
University of the Basque Country, Spain: Research and training on metal

AM; laser PBF and laser DED testing and simulation for aerospace, energy,
and automotive industry. Contact: Aitzol Lamikiz, [email protected]
University of Cadiz, Spain: Research is focused on performance of AM

processes based on the main process and post-processing parameters;
material reuse and applied topologies. Contact: Ana P. Valerga,
[email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
University of Central Lancashire, UK: Master’s AM course; AMTEx process.

Lab has hybrid DED, polymer and metal PBF, VPP, BJT, and MEX 3D
printers and 3D scanners. Contact: Hadley Brooks, [email protected]
University of Exeter, UK: Centre for Additive Layer Manufacturing; high-

performance polymers, composites, and nanocomposites for PBF and MEX
processes using specialist equipment such as EOS P 800 and P 810,
3DGence, Intamsys, and Minifactory. Contact: Oana Ghita,
[email protected]
University of Johannesburg, South Africa: Novel nanomaterials,

nanostructures, and Fourth Industrial Revolution technology in smart-
energy, smart-materials, and smart-manufacturing using atomic layer
deposition technology. Contact: Tien-Chien Jen, [email protected]
University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain: 3D-printed models for

training in neurosurgery; multi-material-graded scaffolds for tissue
engineering; design optimization of 4D-printed parts; electrical discharge
machining (EDM) electrodes by AM. Contact: Mario Monzón,
[email protected]
University of Manchester, UK: Toolpath generation and motion planning

for multi-axis additive manufacturing (MAAM); reinforcement by
controlling anisotropic mechanical property by MAAM; design
optimization for AM. Contact: Charlie C.L. Wang,
[email protected]
University of Maribor, Slovenia: In-situ alloying of Ti-Ta, heat affected zone

of laser beam and its dependence on process parameters and base
material; atomization of low-melting-point metals. Contact: Igor
Drstvenšek, [email protected]
University of Nottingham, UK: Drop-on-demand metal material jetting

(MJT); multi-material processing; lattice design and optimization; reactive
MJT of polymers; AM for drug delivery and biodirecting devices; AM of
quantum structures. Contact: Mirela Axinte,
[email protected]
University of Oulu, Finland: Defect-free PBF manufactured AiSi 316L for

demanding applications; combined shot peening and polishing for
enhanced fatigue resistance. Contact: Antti Järvenpää,
[email protected]
University of Sheffield, UK: New process development, monitoring, and

control; polymer chemistry; custom alloy development; industry partners
include material suppliers, and equipment manufacturers. Contacts: Iain
Todd, [email protected] and Kamran Mumtaz,
[email protected]
University of Turku, Finland: Laser PBF; laser and arc DED; in-situ
detection of AM process signature; AI-enhanced simulation of AM; AM-
based novel industrial solutions; laser beam-metal interaction, digital twin.
Contact: Antti Salminen, [email protected]
University of Twente, Netherlands: Focus on titanium printing using

Additive Industries MetalFab1; industrialization of metal PBF, design for
industrial AM. New facilities under development. Contact: Ian Gibson,
[email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
University of Western Macedonia, Greece: Local and global analysis and

modeling of CAD curves and surfaces for mechanical AM applications.
Contact: Nickolas S. Sapidis, [email protected]
University of Wolverhampton, UK: Metal PBF of antimicrobial

biomaterials; antiviral and COVID-resistant algorithmic materials;
stiffness- and strength-matched bone substitute materials; highly
conductive and reflective pure copper and silver for electric machines;
multi-material printing. Contact: Arun Arjunan, [email protected]
University of Zanjan, Iran: Improving mechanical behavior of AM parts;

residual stress analysis in AM; development of new MEX fiber-reinforced
composite filament; optimization of MEX and VPP process. Contact: Rasoul
Moharrami, [email protected]
Vaal University of Technology, South Africa: Participation in BiPAP

ventilator project for COVID-19 patients; purchased Hyrax metal PBF
system; PhD project to compile DfAM curriculum. Contact: David
Mauchline, [email protected]
Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands: Material, design,

and application studies on PBF aluminum, freeformer, and polypropylene;
lightweight end-of-arm tools; bachelor’s-level AM courses. Contacts: Geert
Heideman, [email protected] and Tommie Stobbe,
[email protected]
Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland: Re-engineering for AM;

development of AM metal alloys; medical implants and scaffolds;
pharmaceutical products; monitoring of AM processes; AM economics; 3D
digitalization. Contact: Bogdan Dybala, [email protected]
Research institutes The following summaries are provided from 16 research institutes from
around the world. These summaries provide “snapshots” of current
with AM capabilities
research capabilities and accomplishments.
AIDIMME Instituto Tecnológico, Spain: Research in processing metals,

polymers, nanocomposites, and concrete; laser-based and electron-beam
metal PBF, DED, polymer PBF, VPP, and MEX. Contact: Luis Portolés,
[email protected]
Center for AM of Metals, Maine: Low-cost metal AM fixturing and tooling;

design; injection molds; bound metal deposition; DED; industrial
partnerships; quality systems; and training. Contact: John Belding,
[email protected]
Center for Innovative Materials Processing through Direct Digital

Deposition at Penn State University, Pennsylvania: AM design, materials,
processes, and characterization for engineering applications;
interdisciplinary fundamental and applied R&D; strong partnerships with
DOD and industry; classified capability. Contacts: Ted Reutzel,
[email protected], Tim Simpson, [email protected], Mike Hickner,
[email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Center of Medical Devices and Additive Manufacturing at New York City

College of Technology: Comparative analysis of 3D-printed denture resins
with traditional denture material in the macro- and micro-level; low-cost
fabrication of prosthetic socket using 3D printing. Contact: Gaffar Gailani,
[email protected]
Replica of skull of the Theodore Roosevelt bear (made using

BJT), courtesy of New York City College of Technology
Central Metallurgical R&D Institute, Egypt: Materials and production

process research; technical services for design and fabrication of plastic
and metal AM products, especially patient-specific prostheses from
titanium alloys and lightweight metal alloys. Contact: Khalid Abd Elghany,
[email protected]
Ecole Centrale Nantes/GeM, France: DfAM; wire-arc AM, laser metal

deposition; hybrid process development; bioprinting; sand printing;
charged polymers; environmental impact assessment; AM sustainability.
Contact: Jean-Yves Hascoët, [email protected]
IDONIAL, Spain: Circular economy research for extrusion-based

technology; DfAM; auxetic and thermal exchange structures; large-scale
concrete 3D printing. Contact: Luis Ignacio Suárez Ríos,
[email protected]
I-Form Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre of University College

Dublin, Ireland: Application of digital technologies to AM; integrating
printing, material modelling, and digital technologies; digital twin
development, predictive process control and operator feedback. Contact:
Denis Dowling, [email protected]
MEX rim propeller, courtesy of I-Form Advanced

Manufacturing Research Centre

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Inspire AG/Innovation Centre for AM, Switzerland: Focus on powder layer

qualification, in-line AM-process and part qualification, AM-ready alloy
development, and direct laser-based processing of ceramics. Contact:
Adriaan Spierings, [email protected]
Israel Institute of Metals, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology: PBF and

BJT for R&D of new metal alloys, functional materials, tungsten alloys,
graphite structures, shape-memory alloys, and composites for aerospace
and biomedicine; polishing and joining techniques. Contact: Evgeny
Strokin, [email protected]
The National Center for Additive Manufacturing Excellence at Auburn

University, Alabama: Structural integrity of AM materials; laser-material
interactions and thermal aspects of AM; data analytics; digital
manufacturing and AM cyber and physical security; AM applications.
Contact: Nima Shamsaei, [email protected]
NSF IUCRC Center for Science of Heterogeneous Additive Printing of 3D

Materials, Massachusetts: Collaborative research center between industry
and universities: multi-material, photopolymer, MEX, composites,
elastomers, defect detect, born-qualified, and toxic reduction. Contact: Joey
Mead, [email protected]
Occupational Hygiene Health Research Initiative, North-West University,

South Africa: Ongoing investigations to monitor and reduce exposure of
AM operators to potential hazardous AM materials. Contact: Sonette du
Preez, [email protected]
SINTEF, Norway: PBF and DED processes; industrialization of AM; digital

support for AM; simulation of AM processes; TO; AM tooling; new
materials for AM. Contacts: Vegard Brøtan, [email protected] and
Klas Boivie, [email protected]
Sirris, Belgium: Material validation; process monitoring; exotic parameter

set development, powder characterization; full chain data acquisition;
quality control with AM-dedicated lab. Contact: Olivier Rigo,
[email protected]
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: R&D in aerospace, energy, and

e-mobility applications; novel applications and materials including
embedded intelligence, quality monitoring, and magnetic materials.
Contact: Pasi Puukko, [email protected]

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Part 7: The Future of Additive Manufacturing
Part 7: The Future of Additive

Manufacturing
Advances point The year 2021 began with several significant mergers and acquisitions,
with a record number over the entire year. Consolidation has been
to what is next widespread across system manufacturers, software developers, material
by Gianluca Mattaroccia producers, and service providers. New applications may follow as a
result. Future consolidation is expected to advance the additive
manufacturing (AM) industry by penetrating deeper into developing and
established sectors. In the long term, the AM ecosystem will continue to
expand and mature.
Service providers with impressive capabilities across the AM value chain

are also consolidating. Companies are beginning to work with customers to
advance design for AM (DfAM) and series production. In 2021, the
consolidation of companies, caused partly by the pandemic, highlighted the
AM industry’s maturity. The technology is now being used for the series
production of products in aerospace, healthcare, and consumer goods. It
will expand into other sectors in the foreseeable future.
An increasing number of privately held companies seek funds for the next
phase of development by going public. An initial public offering (IPO) of 12
AM companies occurred in 2021, either by merging with a special-purpose
acquisition company (SPAC) or through a traditional IPO. Advantages and
disadvantages exist for both methods. The SPAC approach offers a faster
execution timeline to receive funding. This approach also provides funding
opportunities and access to finance and management tools from the
sponsoring company. More than half of the companies that went public in
2021 merged with SPACs. These IPOs suggest strong optimism from the
investment community.
The U.S. and international supply chain faced many challenges in 2021.
Overwhelmed ports, labor shortages, a shortage of shipping containers,
and the arrival of highly transmissible COVID-19 variants impacted the
movement of goods. According to Freightos, the price to ship a full-sized
shipping container from Asia to the U.S. west coast reached more than
$20,000 in September 2021. This is a tenfold increase from 2019. Delivery
times for ocean shipments from China to the U.S. increased to 80 days in
December 2021, up 85% from 2019.
AM can help mitigate supply chain gaps by supporting on-demand and

point-of-sale manufacturing. Other positive impacts of AM include a
reduction in shipping costs, lead times, and inventories. Local
manufacturing is also becoming a priority for many governments. A trend
toward distributed manufacturing is expected as AM improves automation,
productivity, sustainability, and return on investment.
Technical directions One major trend is the transition from applications-driven technology
development to new opportunities being created by technical
and trends
advancements. An ongoing trend is the shift toward involvement from the
consumer for part design, manufacturing, and disposal. New applications
for AM are particularly evident in several industries, including aerospace,
construction, energy, and biomedicine.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AM continues to contribute significantly to part production when multi-

functional performance is required. With part consolidation using DfAM
techniques, a single part can perform several functions, such as fluid flow
control, load transfer, and locations for product assembly. Parts designed
for AM can reduce weight, complexity of manufacturing, and assembly
costs.
Ambitious goals are being set by government agencies and the private
sector on sustainability and responsible sourcing of materials. Desktop
Metal acquired Forust, a company offering end-use wood-like parts using a
binder jetting (BJT) process. Waste byproducts from wood manufacturing
(i.e., cellulose chips and sawdust) and the paper industry (i.e., lignin) are
used as feedstock. The design can include the appearance of realistic wood
grain. Parts can be sanded, stained, dyed, coated, and polished in a manner
similar to traditionally manufactured wood products. This could create a
wide range of new possibilities for furniture and other products.
Figurines made of wood-like AM material, courtesy of Forust
AM in construction is expected to grow and mature over the next several

years. MX3D created a 3D-printed bridge spanning one of the oldest canals
in Amsterdam. The stainless steel bridge was built using robots with six
degrees of freedom, spans 12 m (39.4 ft), and weighs 4,500 kg (9,920 lbs).
It took six years to produce.
3D-printed metal bridge in Amsterdam, courtesy of MX3D
A network of sensors continually collects structural and environmental

information (e.g., strain, vibrations, air temperature, and humidity) from
the bridge. These diagnostics provide engineers with insight into how the
structure performs and holds up over time. The large dataset is said to
provide a baseline for machine learning to improve and optimize future
projects. By gathering real-world data, the next bridge will hopefully be
designed, manufactured, tested, and installed more quickly.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Italian 3D printing company WASP worked with fashion house Christian

Dior to build a unique concept store made up of two circular modules.
Located at Jumeirah Beach in Dubai, the buildings were crafted from earth,
clay, sand, and raw fibers. According to WASP, the modular walls for the
80-m2 (861-ft2) space were printed in 120 hours. The work required 55
tons of feedstock.
A 3D-printed school opened in Malawi, Africa in 2021. It is believed to be

the world’s first 3D-printed school. The walls were built in 15 hours using
locally sourced materials. The organizations that led the project reported
that the construction of the walls reduced the carbon footprint by 70%,
compared to conventional construction methods. According to UNICEF,
Malawi lacks 36,000 primary school classrooms, and construction using
conventional methods would require an estimated 70 years.
School with 3D-printed walls, courtesy of

Ben Kanyizira and Homeline Media
Relativity Space is using AM to produce rocket engines. The company has

unveiled a plan for a new reusable 3D-printed rocket called the Terrain R.
The rocket is expected to launch 20,000 kg (44,092 lbs) to low Earth orbit.
It will be equipped with seven 3D-printed Aeon R rocket engines, each
providing 1.3 million N (292,000 lbs) of thrust.
Rocket construction using AM, courtesy of Relativity Space
The company’s proprietary directed energy deposition (DED) process uses

functionally graded high-strength alloys. The process is monitored real-
time with part inspection driven by advanced artificial intelligence (AI)
control algorithms. AM reduces part count by 90% and build time by 92%,
compared to traditional manufacturing.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
A long-term goal of space travel is to print parts on-site. Many teams are
researching the potential of using AM to produce buildings, launch pads,
and other facilities on uninhabited planets. One possibility is to use local
raw materials as feedstock.
Shell is the first oil and gas company in Europe to obtain CE certification
from a third-party authority for an in-house AM part. The part is a
pressure vessel manufactured with PBF at the Energy Transition Campus
in Amsterdam. Shell worked with LRQA to certify the part in accordance
with the European Pressure Equipment Directive. This certification is an
important milestone for the oil and gas industry because no legislation or
global standards are available for 3D-printed pressure vessels.
The cost of lithium-ion batteries reached an all-time low in 2021, at $132

per kilowatt-hour (kWh). The cost in 2010 was $1,250 per kWh. This
dramatic drop in cost is accelerating the transition from gasoline-powered
to electric-powered vehicles. Some sources predict that electric cars will
become less expensive than gasoline vehicles by 2025.
California-based Sakuu has plans to start manufacturing 3D-printed solid-

state batteries. According to Sakuu, the AM-produced batteries have the
same power capacity as lithium-ion batteries but half the size and one-
third the weight. 3D-printed batteries may penetrate other markets,
including aerospace, miniature medical devices, and personalized
consumer electronics.
Implicit modeling software and field-driven design techniques are being

used in the aerospace and automotive industries. These approaches
advance heat exchanger design by leveraging computational fluid
dynamics algorithms. Designs add complex and highly efficient shapes and
features.
Advanced heat exchanger design, courtesy of the MTC
Some materials, such as silver, copper, and gold, can be difficult to print
using laser PBF systems. These metals have high reflectivity in the near-
infrared spectrum range, but this can be circumvented by substituting
lasers that operate in the visible spectrum. Green lasers operate with a
reduced wavelength and can print parts with high electrical and thermal
conductivity.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Heat exchanger made of copper, courtesy of Delva
In 2021, Steve Verze became the first person to receive a 3D-printed

prosthetic eye from Moorfields Eye Hospital in the UK. The prosthetic has
realistic features, including pupil depth and good definition. AM provided a
less invasive experience for the patient. The eye was produced in half the
time compared to traditional methods.
3D-printed prosthetic eye, courtesy of Hammad Raza
The use of AM applications for personalized healthcare will grow even

more quickly if parts can change form and adapt to environmental
conditions. When AM is used to create such parts, it is often referred to as
4D printing. A pediatric implant is an example in which it adapts as the
patient grows. In 2021, a team of medics in the U.S. used custom AM splints
on three patients with tracheobronchomalacia. The condition causes
excessive collapse of the airways during normal breathing. The 3D-printed
implants can expand during airway growth as it is absorbed by the body.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities claim to have

manufactured the first fully 3D-printed, flexible organic light-emitting
diode display. The array has 64 pixels arranged in an area of 1,450 mm2
(2.25 in2). AM is said to reduce the cost and complexity of the diode
compared to conventional manufacturing processes. This AM advancement
supports the development of health monitoring devices, sensors, and
nanocomputers that can be printed directly on human skin.
Organic light-emitting diode display made with AM,

courtesy of University of Minnesota Twin Cities

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Challenges ahead Many technical changes and advancements are underway. They are
coupled with a widening skills gap and an increasing number of technical
manufacturing jobs. Other issues are the retirement of the “baby boomer”
generation and the Great Resignation involving an estimated 33 million
Americans who quit their jobs, mostly in 2021. This has further increased
the number of high-tech positions and a need for people to fill them.
Employers are responding to these conditions by adjusting pay and

benefits to attract new talent. Finding qualified personnel for skilled
manufacturing jobs is difficult. Meanwhile, current employees are often
receiving offers from competitive organizations.
Insufficient training and education are major challenges and are expected
to become more severe in the short term. It is estimated that two million
manufacturing jobs will go unfilled in this decade in the U.S. alone. The job
market in AM is growing, but trained and experienced personnel are
needed to fill them. Technical schools, community colleges, and
universities are challenged to expand educational opportunities in AM.
More than ever, professional societies, associations, and standards
development organizations are faced with extending training and
certification programs.
Series production in automotive, healthcare, and electronics using AM is

currently limited. Organizations are working to address AM’s limited
choice of materials and high production costs using AM. To a degree, this
challenge can be overcome with the use of low-cost AM systems capable of
producing quality parts, coupled with inexpensive feedstock.
Conventional CAD has limited features for generating geometrically

complex designs suited to AM. The current cost and complexity of
specialized design software tools are barriers to adoption. The design
workflow for AM could benefit from simplification and the integration of
functionality. A series of software products are often required to design
and prepare parts for 3D printing.
Machine connectivity and monitoring are, in many cases, outdated or non-

existent. As of March 2022, it is impossible to easily connect a diverse fleet
of 3D printers to a network to optimize and balance production. Global
connectivity will transform the way products are designed, manufactured,
and consumed. Manufacturing execution software, and the people who
understand its benefits, will help power the future of AM.
Emerging Developments in recent years are leading to interesting new applications

of AM. A growing number of organizations are developing systems that
applications can 3D print electronics, food, and medicine. Each one could grow to
become significant in the future.
3D-printed electronics 3D-printed electronics is a relatively new field. In contrast to other

by Jörg Sander applications, 3D-printed electronics requires two very different materials
to be deposited—one conductive and one non-conductive. Developments
in AM materials and processes over the past decade have contributed
toward advancing this application.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Compared to traditional manufacturing of printed circuit boards (PCBs),

3D-printed electronics have less impact on the environment. Harmful
substances such as acids and galvanic fluids are not required. Also, it does
not produce milling dust from machining the glass-fiber-filled polymer
PCB.
An important aspect of 3D-printed electronics is the absence of wire holes.

It is also possible to print non-planar PCBs. Both characteristics result in
the option of placing more components on the PCB. Similar to other AM
processes, the time between product conception and part production can
be measured in weeks instead of months.
With 3D-printed electronics, integrated resistive and capacitive functions

are possible. Also, filter and coil geometries can be printed into the part.
The ultimate goal is to integrate complex electronic components into an
AM-produced device, eliminating the need for a separate PCB. These
capabilities are expected to have a major impact on future designs.
However, it will be many years before large-scale serial manufacturing of
3D-printed electronics is achieved.
Printed circuit board made by AM,

courtesy of Nano Dimension
In the future, multi-material 3D printing is expected to develop to account

for different material coefficients of thermal expansion and chemical
interactions. These factors affect performance by shortening the life of the
electronic device. Also, predictable electrical conductivity is vital for
electronics design. Research is needed to address the reliability of AM
electronics.
3D-printed food 3D printing can produce designs that are difficult or impossible to
by Kjeld van Bommel manufacture using conventional processes. Food engineers are designing
new food products with detailed structures and unique textures. The
food can come with personalized nutrition and taste.
Material extrusion (MEX) is the most used process for the 3D printing of
food. Various pastes, doughs, purees, and other formulations common in
food preparation can be used as feedstock. Examples products include 3D-
printed pasta from BluRhapsody, chocolate from Callebaut, and
personalized nutraceutical candies from Nourished. Nutraceuticals are
foods that provide additional health benefits and have nutritional value. In
2021, Mondelēz launched 3D-printed chocolates in India under the brand
name Cadbury 3D.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D-printed chocolates, courtesy of Mondelēz
Companies manufacturing MEX systems for food include ByFlow, Natural

Machines, and Print2Taste. ByFlow introduced a new patented chocolate
printing technology at the World’s 50 Best Restaurants Awards 2021
ceremony in Antwerp, Belgium.
Powder bed fusion (PBF) has been used within the Digital Food Processing
Initiative (DFPI), a collaboration between TNO, Eindhoven University of
Technology, and Wageningen University & Research. Both Currant 3D and
Brill 3D Culinary Studio use BJT machines to create sugar-based foods.
3D-printed strawberry chocolate truffles, courtesy of the Sugar Lab
Redefine Meat, Aleph Farms, and Novameat use 3D printing technology to

produce alternative meat products. The goal is mainly to create more
sustainable meat-like products. These companies use non-animal-based
proteins as the raw material. The feedstock is a mix of soy and pea proteins
and other plant-based supplements. MeaTech uses living cells from an
animal and 3D printing to “grow” meat. Several research organizations are
also working in this field.
Steak alternative, courtesy of Redefine Meat

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D-printed food is currently used to create niche products that are mostly
sold online. Scaling this technology and creating cost-competitive products
remains a challenge. This is a focus of DFPI, which demonstrated a
patented extrusion-based multi-nozzle printer in 2021. The collaboration
claims its modular architecture could open opportunities for large-scale
production of 3D-printed food products.
Multi-nozzle extrusion printer, courtesy of TNO
3D-printed medicine AM supports the printing of tablets with specific drug loads and detailed
by Anton Aulbers internal structures. Delivery systems with sophisticated characteristics
can help to precisely program how a medication is released. 3D-printed
medicine shows promise in developing new treatments and providing
solutions to unmet clinical needs.
The pharmaceutical industry recognizes the potential of AM to speed the

development of new medications. The technology supports fast and
flexible production of pills and tablets for clinical trials. Hospitals are
investigating the possibility of printing medication locally to enable the
production of personalized medication for patients.
The most widely researched AM processes are MEX and BJT, but PBF is
also attracting interest. University College London and its spinoff, FabRx,
have been active in this field. In 2020, the M3DIMAKER for personalized
medicine was released. TNO has partnered with several medical centers to
demonstrate personalized 3D-printed medication for children in a clinical
setting.
BJT system for 3D printing tablets, courtesy of TNO

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Traditional pharmaceutical suppliers have shown increasing interest in

3D-printed medications. Excipient supplier DFE Pharma has proposed new
powder formulations tailored specifically for 3D printing. Excipients are
components of a medication that are not active ingredients.
Aprecia, a global leader in 3D printing of medications, announced a

partnership with pharmaceutical-powder-processing technology supplier
Glatt Pharmaceutical Services. The aim is to combine Glatt’s multi-
particulate technologies and Aprecia’s 3D-printing capability.
A joint venture between Merck, a leading European pharmaceutical

company, and AMCM, an EOS subsidiary, is developing PBF production
facilities for experimental medication.
A significant challenge to widespread commercial applications of 3D-

printed medications is complying with strict quality control regulations as
production scales.
3D scanning The 3D scanning industry continues to grow in significance. One primary

by Michael Raphael reason has been the intense growth in digital methods of fabrication,
especially industrial AM. Physical objects, spaces, and even people are 3D
scanned and then digitally modeled. This is sometimes referred to as
reverse engineering, which is done for documentation purposes or to 3D
print, analyze, or dimensionally inspect the model. Scan data is also
generated for augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)
applications. Various tools and methods have become quite common for
capturing the 3D shapes of parts, tools, spaces, artifacts, and humans.
Some can capture colors and textures.
The awareness of and demand for 3D scanning continues to increase. The

range of hardware used to gather 3D data is continually expanding and
improving. New software is being developed and deployed to convert
raw 3D data into usable digital formats. They include CAD models used as
input for 3D printing. A growing number of developers, manufacturers,
and resellers are focused on the field due to increased interest and
broadened offerings in 3D scanning. Some businesses have consolidated
in the recent past. Appendix D provides access to a list of 3D scanning
hardware products. Scan-processing software products for 3D printing
are provided in Part 4 of this report.
Applications for 3D scanning have steadily expanded for more than 30

years, beyond its early use in dimensional metrology. The measurement
instruments used for industrial metrological applications are still relatively
complex and expensive. Today, much less expensive 3D scanning
equipment is being used, and the technology can be found in many
educational institutions and small companies. Cell phone cameras can be
used as 3D scanners. Even so, industrial customers have always been, and
still are, the primary funding source of research and development (R&D)
for 3D scanning technology.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Physical sculpture (left) and 3D scan rendering (right)

created with an iPhone, courtesy of Trnio
Modern industrial coordinate metrology started in the 1940s with the

proliferation of fixed-coordinate measurement machines (CMMs) and
optical measurement devices. Companies used these metrological devices
to check large tools and fixtures for aerospace, automotive, and other
manufacturing sectors. In the 1980s, computers and CAD software became
popular for product design and documentation. Manufacturing and quality
engineers improved dimensional inspection methods of large parts and
assemblies, especially for critical aerospace parts. Measuring instruments,
such as optical theodolites and film-photogrammetry devices, were
dramatically improved by developments in computing, digital electronics,
optics, and coherent lasers.
Portable metrological equipment emerged that allowed 3D measurement

to occur on the factory floor instead of inside a dedicated CMM room. New
instruments became available, including laser and optical trackers,
portable-arm CMMs, and structured-light scanners. These instruments are
used by engineers to solve critical manufacturing problems, which has led
to increased demand for instruments and more R&D by scanner
manufacturers. Using these tools, parts designed and engineered in 3D
CAD can be inspected directly, sometimes while still on a machine or in a
tooling fixture. This results in dramatic improvements in speed, accuracy,
portability, and reliability of 3D scanners at a rate similar to inspection
tools used in the electronics industry.
Portable articulated arm CMM being used for

3D measurement, courtesy of Faro
Current state of 3D Different classes of equipment are available for 3D measurement,

including various styles of non-contact scanners and contact probe
measurement
digitizers. Fixed CMMs, often with heavy granite bases for stability, are
still prevalent in many industrial machine shops and large automotive

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
assembly plants. Portable articulating arms, laser trackers, and optical

trackers provide similar probe-metrology capabilities with the benefit of
range and portability. Many portable CMM systems can be fitted with
laser line scanners. This adds non-contact scanning capability and
discrete measurement with a touch probe.
Structured light technology offers high scan density and near-

instantaneous feature capture over a small area, usually less than 1 x 1 m
(39 x 39 in). The areal image can be, and often is, reduced with lenses to
proportionally increase both resolution and accuracy. Line-of-sight is a
consideration with this technology, as is the alignment of scan patches
with targets or previous passes. These systems are often paired with a
motorized turntable or a more sophisticated motion platform, such as an
industrial robot, for automated 3D scanning and data alignment.
Automation of such inspection systems is becoming increasingly
prevalent with the growth in robotics and control systems.
For scanning larger objects, such as aircraft, ships, wind turbines, and
buildings, a fast-growing category of scanning technology has emerged,
known as spherical scanners. These instruments have transformed the
traditional surveying industry. Surveyors and engineers are rapidly
adopting these tripod-mounted, area-scanning instruments. Their
benefits include relative ease of use, improved scanning accuracy and
density, and speed advantages, compared to conventional line-of-sight
optical instruments. They are generally considered “long-range” light
detection and ranging (LIDAR) scanners capable of gathering data in the
range of hundreds of meters. They can be set up quickly and capture
entire factories, crime scenes, movie sets, and many other large-scale
targets. Most can capture color as well as geometric data.
Large-scale scanning applications,

courtesy of 3Dgroundworks
Processing 3D scan data 3D scanning systems typically capture large quantities of 3D coordinates
known as point clouds. Depending on the scanner and the nature of the
project, the result of scanning is often many points of data, with the
possibility of extremely large files. The size of point-cloud files from 3D
scanners has grown almost exponentially over the years. Transforming
these point clouds into usable formats for downstream applications can
be challenging and time consuming. Many projects require highly
specialized software, significant computing power, and operator skill that
can take years to develop.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
LIDAR point cloud of Washington, DC, courtesy of

the U.S. National Geospatial Program
Scanning tools, such as CMM arms and laser trackers that use a touch
probe, capture significantly less data than laser, structured-light, and CT
scanning methods. The 3D data points from these 3D digitizing tools are
often transformed into geometric features by onboard software in real
time. Frequently, this software function is integrated directly with the
physical measurement operation. Several software products have been
developed to support nearly every brand and type of 3D measuring
instrument, resulting in an integrated platform. This provides a common
environment and gives employees of large enterprises the opportunity to
learn and use a single software product and workflow.
Most work required to transform dense point clouds is handled by a

specific class of software. These tools bridge the gap between the “heavy”
raw scan data and downstream end use, which is typically in 3D CAD
software. They have become integral for both reverse engineering and
dimensional inspection applications.
Another growing market for point-cloud processing is the use of

conversion tools for large terrestrial, mobile, and aerial files. Several
solutions have become available, especially for architectural and
infrastructure modeling, facilities and plants, and GIS mapping. Early
demand for these solutions came from the mining, oil and gas industries,
and from the architectural, engineering, and construction industry. These
solutions support as-built documentation of existing facilities to retrofit
architectural design and analysis.
Post-processing of 3D scan data (left to right) to create and

repair a final part, courtesy of Direct Dimensions

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Democratization An evolving class of 3D scanning tools has emerged that is democratizing

the cost and availability of the technology to virtually anyone. Mobile
phone-based photogrammetry apps bring to the masses the concept of
capturing objects and scenes. This is similar to the way low-cost desktop
3D printers have democratized AM. The latest Apple iPhone and iPad
features LIDAR, which offers real-time depth measurement for the
capture 3D scenes. Some of these solutions are free but produce varying
quality of scan data.
3D-printed figurine produced by 3D scanning

and printing, courtesy of itSeez3D
Trends and opportunities Industrial and professional applications are demanding and represent
the majority of the 3D scanning market. The consumer and prosumer
segments are gaining attention because of their potential to become
sizable markets. Business models continue to be developed that leverage
product customization through AM and low-cost 3D printing. Many of
these new business models are focused on producing custom products
that fit the human body. Mass-market personalization of products,
unlocked by 3D scanning, includes shoe orthotics, eyewear, clothing, and
other wearables.
These concepts follow the patterns of the well-established and compelling

successes in medical and dental areas such as custom hearing aids and
dental hardware. The use of combined 3D scanning and 3D printing is a
business model that is certain to grow. Such end-to-end solutions can be
automated and tied to e-commerce models and could gain widespread
adoption.
Another driver for reality capture is the growing interest in AR and VR.
Demand is rapidly growing for the creation of digital twins of physical
objects, resulting in transformation of objects into quality 3D visualization
models. Restrictions caused by the pandemic are driving a demand for
online virtual tours of museums, historic venues, and even factory floors.
3D scanners are being deployed with increasing frequency at accident
scenes, construction projects, classrooms, libraries, social events, and
courtrooms.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Scanners are found increasingly in maker spaces, art events, exercise gyms,
and shopping malls. They are even at social events in the form of 3D photo
booths and other 3D interactive entertainment exhibits. Several startups
have launched full-body scanning booths for apparel and to make full-body
figurines. Market-defining “killer apps” are emerging that combine 3D
scanning and 3D printing. Given the personalization these technologies
support, human body-centric businesses are likely to become more
successful in the future.
Workforce Workforce development is an overarching term that refers to the

recruitment and retention of effective and motivated people. It focuses on
development human talent and recognizes the essential role they play in the success of
by Nick Pearce an organization, industry, or country. The movement of talent within the
AM industry was high in 2021. Research by Alexander Daniels Global
shows that 37% of AM professionals in the U.S. changed companies in
2021 compared to 7% in 2020. The equivalent figures for the Europe,
Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) regions are 34% and 8%, respectively.
Percentage of AM professionals changing companies,

courtesy of Alexander Daniels Global
Further research indicates relatively little growth in new talent entering

the AM industry in 2021. The increase in the U.S. was 13%, and the figure
for the EMEA region was 0%. This is in contrast with the growth in AM jobs
in 2021. In the U.S., AM job vacancies grew by 346%, while the growth in
the EMEA region was 515%. A resurgence in hiring was expected after the
low vacancy figures of 2020. However, vacancies in 2021 were much
higher than the pre-pandemic levels of 2019. These figures indicate that
the demand for AM talent has exceeded supply.
Job vacancies by year in the U.S. and EMEA,

courtesy of Alexander Daniels Global

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Salary increases in the AM industry in 2021 were relatively modest but

higher than the general labor market. In the U.S. and EMEA regions,
salaries across all AM positions increased by 9% and 10%, respectively.
The increase in the Asia/Pacific (APAC) region was only 2.5%. The most
significant increases were for R&D roles with a salary increase of 15%,
26%, and 10% in the U.S., EMEA region, and APAC region, respectively.
This correlates with R&D professionals being some of the most sought-
after professionals.
AM salary growth by region in 2021, courtesy of Alexander Daniels Global
This data points to a challenging time ahead for companies looking to hire.
An unprecedented “war for talent” will result from significant workforce
turnover, limited new talent entering the market, and rapidly accelerating
demand. Salaries are expected to continue to rise as companies attempt to
retain their existing employees and attract new talent.
Hiring processes are likely to take longer as it becomes increasingly

difficult to identify and engage professionals with requisite experience.
Candidates will have many job opportunities from which to choose, so
employers must make their propositions compelling, and not just from a
salary perspective. Post-pandemic candidates will likely seek the flexibility
of working from home and a better balance of work and private life.
Sustainability and a Government policies, manufacturing operations, and public opinion

increasingly focus on sustainability issues. AM processes and design play
circular economy a role in sustainability and the circular economy. This has been
acknowledged through government funding initiatives aimed at
encouraging researchers and companies to explore the potential of AM in
this area. Sustainability considerations typically focus on life-cycle energy
savings, recyclability, disposal, use of water, and carbon footprints.
The full impact of AM on sustainability and the circular economy is best

understood by considering the whole life cycle of a product. AM can help
support sustainability along a product’s life cycle, including raw materials,
manufacturing, packaging, distribution, operation, and disposal.
AM uses similar feedstock to other manufacturing processes such as the

forming of parts from metals and plastics. However, the material often
requires some additional processing prior to manufacturing, such as the
making of powders or filaments. This processing can have a negative
impact on sustainability, but it also provides an opportunity to use natural
and recycled materials.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
UBQ Materials and Plastic App have partnered to produce polymer

filaments for MEX from waste that would otherwise go into a landfill.
Another source of sustainable feedstock for AM is plant-based polymers.
Advanced Laser Materials has partnered with Arkema to commercialize a
polymer for PBF that has been certified as carbon neutral. The material is
derived from sustainably sourced castor beans grown in India.
Polymer powder for PBF made from castors beans (bottom,

right), courtesy of Advanced Laser Materials
Many AM processes make efficient use of materials. Much of the material

consumed during the process becomes the final product, so waste levels
can be low, depending on the AM process. This is especially true if minimal
support material is used. Consider the marked contrast to machining,
where a high percentage of material becomes chips and scrap. Recycling
unused material, such as excess powder or supports, is relatively easy for
metal and some polymer AM processes.
HP uses AM-produced tools to make molded-fiber packaging from

sustainable materials such as recycled paper. The tools themselves are
made from a sustainable polyamide sourced from plant-based materials.
The use of AM to manufacture locally can have a favorable impact on
distribution. Products can be made closer to the customer to reduce
delivery time, cost, and energy. Medical products made at point-of-care
facilities have led the way in this approach, with other applications
emerging. Products made locally means less transportation and energy
consumption.
Molded-fiber packaging produced with sustainable

AM-produced tooling, courtesy of HP

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AM reduces product weight through topology optimization and internal

lattice structures. It can also be used to produce geometric features that
improve efficiency and product performance. Sakuu announced a system
for producing 3D-printed batteries for electric vehicles. The system
combines PBF and MJT to produce solid-state batteries that are reportedly
lighter and smaller than traditional lithium-ion batteries.
Product disposal can be delayed by increasing customer attachment to a

product. The personalization options made possible with AM can help in
this regard. AM can also extend the life of aging products and equipment.
Reverse engineering can be used to produce otherwise unobtainable spare
parts. For example, Shell is adopting 3D printing to produce spare parts for
its global energy production. AM supports on-demand production of both
products and spare parts. Storage requirements are reduced, and waste
associated with unused spare parts is eliminated.
Reverse engineering of replacement parts to be

made using AM, courtesy of Shell
The ultimate circular economy of AM would be a system that could

produce highly efficient products from a single material using on-demand
manufacturing. When a product reaches the end of its useful life, it would
be recycled for the 3D printing of next-generation products. This scenario
lends itself to space exploration and would make efficient use of limited
resources on Earth.
Landscape of AM Ventures (AMV) is a globally active venture capital firm focusing on

early-stage AM startups involving hardware, software, materials, and
AM startups applications. The company analyses business plans, tracks funding
by Arno Held rounds, and monitors the survival and success rates of companies. The
information gathered from its body of work gives insight into trends and
characteristics among successful startups. Since 2021, AMV has operated
as a venture capital fund.
AMV focuses on companies developing and implementing industrial

products and services. Of the 2,214 companies identified so far, 839 were
founded in 2021. This represents an increase by a factor of three,
compared to the number of companies scouted in 2020. Regions showing
the highest numbers of AM startups are Asia/Pacific, Germany, Austria,
Switzerland (DACH), and North America. The following chart shows the
number of AM startups scouted by region.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Source: AM Ventures
Certain regions are fertile breeding grounds for young companies. In the
U.S., Boston, Massachusetts, Austin, Texas, and Silicon Valley, California
have a strong focus on hardware and software. In Europe, the metropolitan
areas of Munich, Germany, Vienna, Austria, and Zurich, Switzerland are the
three top regions. Each specializes in its own area of technology. Within
Asia/Pacific countries, Singapore and Seoul, South Korea are identified as
highly innovative regions. All eight regions have the following four main
success factors in common:
▪ World-class technical universities, providing highly educated talent

▪ Availability of large corporations with “high-tech” capabilities,
potentially serving as development partners and pilot customers
▪ Experienced and well-connected angel and other investors, providing
funds and relevant networks
▪ Outstanding technical and commercial infrastructure with worldwide
access
In 2021, the proportion of AM startups focusing on applications was 47%,

as shown in the following chart. This compares to 26% in 2020. In contrast
to previous years, the applications segment is larger than the hardware,
which dropped from 39% in 2020 to 26% in 2021.
Source: AM Ventures
This reflects an increased adoption of AM as a production method and

more widespread use of DfAM methods to develop products. This is a
promising indication that AM is moving toward industrial maturity and the
long-expected realization of AM series production. The following chart
provides the categories for 2020.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Source: AM Ventures
In 2021, funding for AM increased strongly and reached an all-time high of

more than $1.8 billion. This figure excludes SPAC mergers and IPOs. The
average annual growth rate for startup investments has been 69% since
2013. Major funding events in 2021 within hardware, software, materials,
and applications include the following:
▪ Oqton raised $40 million in Series A funding to apply AI to AM

▪ Mighty Buildings raised $40 million in Series B funding
▪ Fictiv raised $35 million in Series D funding to expand its on-demand
digital manufacturing platform
▪ Kings 3D Printing, a Chinese producer of large-scale industrial VPP
systems, raised 100 million Chinese yuan ($15.8 million) in Series B
funding to further develop its metal AM technology for dental
applications
▪ Nexa3D raised more than $55 million in funding to commercialize its
polymer AM technology
▪ LightForce Orthodontics raised $50 million in Series C funding to
develop custom 3D-printed dental aligners
▪ Formlabs raised $150 million in Series E funding, doubling its valuation
to $2 billion
▪ Arris Composites raised $88.5 million in Series C funding to further scale
the company’s global operations
▪ ICON raised $207 million in a Series B round to scale construction of its
3D-printed homes
▪ Generative design software company nTopology raised $65 million in
Series D funding to grow internationally
▪ 6K Additive raised $51 million in Series C funding to ramp up production
of metal AM powders
▪ Arevo raised $25 million in Series B funding to scale its carbon-fiber AM
technology
Startups and early- Startup companies and early-stage investments are a dynamic part of the
developing AM ecosystem. The following table records 99 investment
stage investments transactions involving startup and developing technology companies
related to AM. Financing received in connection with special-purpose
acquisition company (SPAC) mergers are listed in a separate table, as are
acquisitions and IPOs. This table does not include investments made
“under the radar” in which startups and investors do not disclose the
transactions. The figures in the “Amount” column are millions of dollars.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Date Company Country Amount Round Focus Lead investor

Jan 21 Breezm Korea $3.0 Series A services Kakao Ventures
3DEO U.S. $14.0 Not specified services Alpha Edison
Feb 21 Cubee 3D Israel ‒ Pre-seed services Opendoor Venture Capital
Uniformity Labs U.S. $38.4 Series B materials IP group, Orion Resource Partners
Mighty Buildings U.S. $40.0 Not specified systems Khosla Ventures, Zeno Ventures
Atherton Bike UK $0.5 Seed services Angel Investment Network
Ai Build UK $1.0 Seed software SuperSeed
Redefine Meat Israel $29.0 Series A systems Happiness Capital, Hanaco Ventures
Hyperganic Germany $7.8 Not specified software Not specified
Fictiv U.S. $35.0 Series D services 40 North Ventures, Honeywell
Mantle U.S. $13.0 Not specified systems Foundation Capital
Mar 21 Additive Manufacturing Technologies UK $3.3 Not specified systems NPIF – Mercia Equity Finance
Jiga Israel $0.1 Seed software Y Combinator
3D Bistro Poland ‒ Seed services VCLink
Addifab Denmark $6.3 Series A systems West Hill Capital
Continuous Composites U.S. ‒ Not specified systems Saint Gobain - NOVA
Fortify U.S. $20.0 Series B systems Cota Capital
Valcun Belgium $1.6 Not specified systems Piet D’Haeyer
Wematter Sweden $4.4 Not specified systems Private investors
DDM Systems U.S. ‒ Series A systems 10X Capital
Amplify Additive U.S. $1.1 Series A systems Not specified
Apr 21 ExtraBold Japan ‒ Not specified systems Real Tech Holdings
Trio Labs U.S. $3.8 Not specified systems Not specified
Additive Scale Germany $1.1 Seed services Not specified
3D Printing Corp Japan ‒ Not specified systems Taiyo Nippon Sanso
Geomiq UK $3.8 Seed services Samaipata
Revo Foods Austria $1.6 Seed systems Hazelpond Capital
MX3D Netherlands $2.5 Not specified software DOEN Participaties
3YOURMIND Germany $6.9 Series A+ software LBBW VC, Verve Ventures
Allegro 3D U.S. $1.0 Grant systems NSF
SK Fine Japan ‒ Not specified systems Osaka University Venture Capital
May 21 Remedy Health U.S. $11.0 Series A systems ADM Ventures
Kings 3D China $15.8 Series B systems Rongyi Investment
Xolo Germany ‒ Seed systems Not specified
Nexa3D U.S. $55.0 Not specified systems OurCrowd, Saudi Aramco Energy
LuxCreo China $15.8 Series B systems HKSTP
Formlabs U.S. $150.0 Series E systems SoftBank Vision Fund 2
Restor3D U.S. $13.0 Series B systems Not specified
Jun 21 Brinter Finland $1.3 Seed systems Innovestor
Seurat U.S. $41.0 Series B systems Technology Impact Fund
ioTech Israel ‒ Series A systems Henkel Adhesive Technologies
Jul 21 J.A.M.E.S. Germany $6.0 Joint Venture services Nano Dimension, Hensoldt
Mighty Buildings U.S. $22.0 Series B extension services ArcTern Ventures, Core Innovation
Triastek China $52.2 Series B systems Matrix
Fabric8Labs U.S. $19.3 Series A systems Intel Capital
Inkbit U.S. $30.0 Series B systems Phoenix Venture Partners
Continous Composites U.S. $17.0 Series A systems B. Riley Venture Capital
Aug 21 Romar Engineering Australia $4.3 Grant services MMI
Titomic Australia $1.7 Grant services Australian Government
Toothsi India $20.0 Series B services Eight Roads Ventures
Arevo U.S. $25.0 Series B systems Khosla Ventures
Castor Israel $3.5 Seed software Xerox
ICON U.S. $207.0 Series B services Norwest Venture Partners
Holo U.S. ‒ Not specified services Lam Capital
Sept 21 Fortius U.S. $1.4 Pre-seed materials Not specified
AON3D Canada $11.5 Series A systems SineWave Ventures
Evolve U.S. $30.0 Growth systems 3D Ventures
Carcol Italy $3.8 Not specified systems Primo Ventures
Mantle U.S. $25.0 Series B systems Fine Structure Ventures
General Lattice U.S. $1.0 Pre-seed software AP Ventures
Oct 21 Polly Polymer China $15.8 Not specified systems Vitalbridge Capital
Danae U.S. ‒ Not specified services Conscious Venture Partners
Enovate3D China ‒ Seed systems Sequoia China
Conflux Australia $6.3 Series A services AM Ventures
AMT UK $14.5 Series B systems Foresight Williams Technology Funds
Nov 21 Lightforce Orthodontics U.S. $50.0 Series C services Kleiner Perkins
Immensa Saudi Arabia $7.0 Series A services Energy Capital Group
Biosapien U.S. $1.8 Seed materials SOSV
Arris U.S. $88.5 Series C systems XN
Chromatic 3D Materials U.S. $5.0 Not specified materials Embedded Ventures
nTopology U.S. $65.0 Series D software Tiger Global Management

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Date Company Country Amount Round Focus Lead investor

Zhuhai Sailner 3D Technology China $15.8 Pre-A services Legend Capital
Triastek China ‒ Series B+ systems Triwise Capital
Foundry Lab New Zealand $8.0 Series A systems Blackbird Ventures
Dec 21 Prellis Biologics U.S. $14.5 Series B systems Not specified
Wenext China $55.0 Series B services CAS Investment Management
Rapid Liquid Print U.S. ‒ Seed systems BMW iVentures
Itamsys China ‒ Not specified systems Porsche Ventures
XJet Israel ‒ Not specified systems Not specified
Incus Austria ‒ Series A systems AM Ventures
Inventia Life Science Australia $25.7 Series B systems Blackbird Ventures
UnionTech China $31.6 Series D systems Dening Capital
Jan 22 Adaxis France $1.1 Pre-seed software EIT Manufacturing
Seurat U.S. $21.0 Series B extension systems Xerox Ventures
Equispheres Canada $3.5 Grant materials FEDDEV
Redefine Meat Israel $135.0 Not specified systems Hanaco Ventures
Headmade Materials Germany $6.3 Not specified materials EIC Accelerator
Healshape France $7.4 Series A materials Pulsalys SAS
Feb 22 Elementun 3D U.S. $22.0 Series B materials Not specified
HBD China $60.0 Series A systems Qianhai FOF
Nuclera UK $42.5 Series B systems M&G, Amadeus Capital Partners
DyeMansion Germany $16.4 Not specified systems European Innovation Council
Q5D UK $2.5 Seed systems Chrysalix Vcenture Capital
Headmade Materials Germany $2.7 Series A materials AM Ventures
Stereotech Russia ‒ Not specified systems VEB Ventures
Scrona Switzerland $9.6 Series A systems AM Ventures
ICON U.S. $185.0 Series B extension systems Tiger Global Management
Raise3D China $15.8 Series C systems Shanghai Jinpu
9T Labs Switzerland $17.0 Series A systems Stratasys, Solvay
The reported numbers in the table are predominantly investments in

equity. Government grants to commercial entities were also included in the
previous table. Grants to non-commercial entities, such as research or
academic institutions, were excluded. Investments or grants less than
$100,000 were also excluded.
Sources of funding for companies in the table are public and private
investment companies (e.g., venture capital firms, government investment
agencies, and individuals). Funding also comes from corporations
acquiring or taking a position in a startup company, either directly or
through a corporate venture arm established for making early-stage
investments.
To be included in the previous table, recipients of funding must be

involved in an AM-related development or commercial activity. These
developments and activities include AM systems, materials, software, and
services. In some cases, companies whose activities do not directly involve
AM were included, but only if their products or services rely primarily on
AM. Internal investments by developed companies in new plants and
activities were excluded.
In some cases, investments or acquisitions were announced, but details,

such as the amount of financing, the name of the round, or the investor’s
identity were omitted. Of the 99 investment transactions recorded, 82%
reported the investment amount, or the amounts were obtained from
regulatory filings. The reported investment range from $125,000 to $207
million. The average investment or value of the transaction in 2021 was
$24.4 million, a considerable increase from the $20.8 million reported in
2020. The median investment was $13 million, significantly more than the
$8 million reported in 2020.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
In the reporting period, the total investment in AM startups was almost $2

billion. This amount excludes investments not reported or investments
listed without transaction amounts. Investments made in countries that do
not report venture investments as frequently as in the U.S. and Europe
were excluded from this estimate. Investments made as part of SPAC
merger transactions were not included in this figure. In the 12-month
period from March 1, 2021 to February 28, 2022, the total investment
amount was about $1.8 billion. In the calendar year 2021, the amount
invested was about $1.4 billion.
Companies based in the U.S. accounted for 38.4% of the reported

transactions, as shown in the following chart. European companies
reported 29.3% of the transactions. All other countries reported 32.3% of
the transactions. The culture of investment and reporting differs by region
and is likely to be a cause for lack of information on startup activity in
some parts of the world.
Regarding the reported stage of investment, 19.2% were pre-seed or seed

investments, 20.2% were Series A investments, and 22.2% were Series B
investments. The remaining 7.1% were Series C, D, or E investments. The
remaining 31.3% were grants and joint venture financing, or the company
did not report the stage of investment.
Investments in system developers accounted for 60.6% of the transactions,

while material developers accounted for only 9.1%. Many systems
developers also develop materials for use on their systems. Companies
providing services, including manufacturing, accounted for 21.2%.
Investments in software companies totaled 9.1% of the reported
transactions.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Acquisitions and 2021 saw a significant number of acquisitions, initial public offerings
public offerings (IPOs), and secondary offerings among startup companies. Companies that
receive early-stage, high-risk investments typically exit through an
acquisition or public offering. Acquisitions and IPOs provide a record of
startup companies at the end of their life cycle and are a source of investor
returns on their investments. They typically occur long after a company is
founded because it can take years to develop commercial products and
services.
The following table lists 13 IPOs and secondary public financings of startup
companies. Also included in the table are companies that began trading on
public markets through mergers with SPACs. These transactions are
technically not IPOs, but they have the effect of an IPO because they result
in shares of a private, startup company being publicly traded for the first
time. The figures in the “Amount” column are millions of dollars.
Date Company Name Country Amount Round Focus

Jan 21 Nano Dimension U.S. $332.5 Secondary offering systems
Feb 21 Nano Dimension U.S. $500.0 Secondary offering systems
Mar 21 3D Metalforge Australia $7.4 IPO services
Massivit Israel $51.5 IPO systems
Jun 21 Xometry U.S. $302.5 IPO software
3DM Israel $13.0 IPO systems
Jul 21 Freemelt Sweden $3.4 IPO systems
Markforged U.S. $361.0 SPAC merger and PIPE1 systems
Sep 21 Velo3D U.S. $274.0 SPAC merger and PIPE1 systems
Shapeways U.S. $103.0 SPAC merger and PIPE1 services
Oct 21 Titomic Australia $6.6 Secondary offering systems
Dec 21 Fathom U.S. $80.0 SPAC merger services
Feb 22 Fast Radius U.S. $315.4 SPAC merger and PIPE1 services
Footnote:
1 Private investment in public equity
Five companies in the previous table were listed on public exchanges for
the first time through IPOs. Five companies began trading through SPAC
mergers. The Shapeways’ SPAC merger was excluded because the company
was founded in 2007 and is not considered a startup. The merger is
covered in Part 3 of this report.
IPOs, SPACs, and related PIPE investments and secondary public offerings
brought in a total of $2.35 billion in funds to AM industry startups. Public
financing options are more popular in some markets, especially for young
companies. For this reason, our listing of IPOs and secondary offerings
show transactions in a limited number of countries.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
New AM companies New AM companies are developing novel approaches that seek to solve
old and new problems. These companies are working to develop systems,
software, materials, and services for AM. This section includes a list of
110 companies focused on developing systems, materials, and software
that will play a role in shaping the future of the AM industry.
Grid Logic is developing a metal MEX process that selectively deposits off-
the-shelf commercial metal powder and foundry sand support material.
Parts are printed and then sintered in a post-processing step. No binder is
required, and the foundry sand can be reused. Multiple metals may be
deposited in the same build. The following image is a 200-mm (7.9-in)
diameter prototype axial flux induction rotor. The part is made in copper
and a proprietary soft magnetic composite iron powder. The company is
prototyping each part of an axial flux motor with the goal of printing the
entire motor in one build.
Rotor being printed (left), after sintering (center), and

after machining (right), courtesy of Grid Logic
Forust, a Desktop Metal company, is developing a high-volume wood BJT

process. The company uses sawdust from wood mills and discarded wood
products. A binder is used to selectively glue the particles in a layer-by-
layer fashion. The Forust process consists of a Shop System from Desktop
Metal and Viridis3D RAM 336 machine from ETEC, formerly Envisiontec,
which is also owned by Desktop Metal. Forust offers the process as a
service and sells home goods on its website.
Wood products, courtesy of Forust
The companies in the following table are developing a wide range of AM

applications, technologies, and services.
Company Location Website

1A Technologies Hartmannsdorf, Germany www.1a-technologies.com
3D Hybrid Solutions Los Angeles, California, U.S. www.3dhybridsolutions.com
3Deus Dynamics Villeurbanne, France www.3deusdynamics.com
3D-Fig Salzkotten, Germany www.3d-figo.de
3DKG Bressanone, Italy www.3dkg.eu
3DQue Vancouver, Canada www.3dque.com
9T Labs Zurich, Switzerland www.9tlabs.com
Aceo 3D Burghausen, Germany www.aceo3d.com
Additiv Solutions Pretoria, South Africa www.aditiv.solutions
Additive Alliance Bedford, New Hampshire, U.S. www.additivealliancellc.com
Addonaut Odense, Denmark www.gust.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Adira Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal www.adira.pt
Aerosint Liège, Belgium www.aerosint.com
Aeroswift Pretoria, South Africa www.aeroswift.com
AFPT Dörth, Germany www.afpt.de
Amaero Notting Hill, Australia www.amaero.com.au
Ambots Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S. www.ambots.net
Arevo Labs Milpitas, California, U.S. www.arevo.com
Arris Composites Berkeley, California, U.S. www.arriscomposites.com
Atlant 3D Nanosystems Lyngby, Denmark www.atlant3d.com
Axtra3D Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S. www.axtra3d.com
Bahr Luhde, Germany www.bahr-modultechnik.de
BauMit Wopfing, Austria www.baumit.at
Big Metal Additive Denver, Colorado, U.S. www.bigmetaladditive.com
BotFactory Long Island City, New York, U.S. www.botfactory.co
Canon Tokyo, Japan www.canon.com
Caracol Barlassina, Italy www.caracol-am.com
CleanGreen3D Dublin, Ireland www.cleangreen3d.com
Cobbler Technologies Bangor, Massachusetts, U.S. www.cobblertechnologies.com
Compound Dynamics Wausau, Wisconsin, U.S. www.compounddynamics.com
Continuous Composites Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, U.S. www.continuouscomposites.com
Coriolis Quéven, France www.coriolis-composites.com
Creative 3D Technologies Austin, Texas, U.S. www.creative3dtechnologies.com
DM3D Auburn Hills, Michigan, U.S. www.dm3dtech.com
Electroimpact Mukilteo, Washington, U.S. www.electroimpact.com
Electronic Alchemy Houston, Texas, U.S. www.electronicalchemy.net
Etherial Machines Bangalore, India www.etherealmachines.com
Evobeam Nieder-Olm, Germany www.evobeam.com
Fabmaker Braunschweig, Germany www.fabmaker.com
Forust Burlington, Massachusetts, U.S. www.forust.com
Freeform Composites Melbourne, Australia www.freeformcomposites.com
GF Machining Solutions Biel, Switzerland www.gfms.com
GRANTE Esztergom, Hungary www.duplex3d.com
Grid Logic Lapeer, Michigan, U.S. www.grid-logic.com
Haute Fabrication San Marcos, Texas, U.S. www.hautefabrication.com
Headmade Materials Unterpleichfeld, Germany www.headmade-materials.de
Henkel Dusseldorf, Germany www.henkel-adhesives.com
Hermle Gosheim, Germany www.hermle-generative-manufacturing.com
HoGroTec Hamburg, Germany www.hogrotec.com
Holo Newark, California, U.S. www.holoam.com
Hurco Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S. www.hurco.com
Ibarmia Azkoitia, Spain www.ibarmia.com/en
ICON Austin, Texas, U.S. www.iconbuild.com
Incremental3D Innsbruck, Austria www.incremental3d.eu
Inkbit Medford, Massachusetts, U.S. www.inkbit3d.com
Innovatica Rudniki, Poland www.innovatica3d.com
Jeol Tokyo, Japan www.jeol.co.jp
Kloe Montpellier, France www.kloe-france.com
Kwambio Groton, Connecticut, U.S. www.kwambio.com
Largix Kohav Ya'ir, Israel www.largix.com
Magnus Metal Rehovot, Israel www.magnusmetal.com
Mantis Composites San Luis Obispo, California, U.S. www.mantiscomposites.com
Mantle San Francisco, California, U.S. www.mantle3d.com
MeaTech Ness Ziona, Israel www.meatech3d.com
Meld Manufacturing Christiansburg, Virginia, U.S. www.meldmanufacturing.com
Membino Elmshorn, Germany www.membino.de
Meta-Additive Stoke-on-Trent, UK www.meta-additive.com
Micromaker3D Auckland, New Zealand www.micromaker3d.com
MicroTEC Duisberg, Germany www.microtec-d.com
Mitsubishi Electric Tokyo, Japan www.mitsubishi-edm.de
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Tokyo, Japan www.mhi.com
Mogassam Newark, Delaware, U.S. www.mogassam.com
Moi Pero, Italy www.moi.am
Nanofabrica Tel Aviv, Israel www.nano-fabrica.com
Natural Robotics Barcelona, Spain www.natubots.com
Nematx Zürich, Switzerland www.nematx.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Nemotec Portland, Oregon, U.S. www.nemotec.com
Norsk Titanium Hønefoss, Norway www.norsktitanium.com
Notion Systems Schwetzingen, Germany www.notion-systems.com
One Click Metal Tamm, Germany www.oneclickmetal.com
OVE Warsaw, Poland www.o-v-e.com
Phrozen Hsinchu, Taiwan www.phrozen3d.com
Prenta Oy Kangasala, Finland www.prenta.fi
Pro-Beam Systems Gilching, Germany www.pro-beam.com
Procada Trollhättan, Sweden www.procada.se
Q.Big 3D Aalen, Germany www.qbig3d.de
R3 Printing Long Island City, New York, U.S. www.r3printing.com
Ramlab Rotterdam, The Netherlands www.ramlab.com
Redefine Meat Rehovot, Israel www.redefinemeat.com
Ricoh Tokyo, Japan www.ricoh.com
Samyoung Gyeonggi-do, South Korea www.samyoung.co.kr
SavorEat Rehovot, Israel www.savor-eat.com
Seurat Wilmington, Massachusetts, U.S. www.seuratech.com
Spectroplast Zurich, Switzerland www.spectroplast.com
Sugino Uozu City, Japan www.suginocorp.com
Symme3D Timisoara, Romania www.symme3d.com
The Industry Värnamo, Sweden www.the-industry.se
Trio Labs Durham, North Carolina, U.S. www.trio-labs.com
TSC Beijing, China www.tsc-bj.com
Uniformity Labs Fremont, California, U.S. www.uniformitylabs.com
ValCUN Oostakker, Belgium www.valcun.be
Visitech Lier, Norway www.visitech.no
Voxel8 Somerville, Massachusetts, U.S. www.voxel8.com
VRC Metal Systems Box Elder, South Dakota, U.S. www.vrcmetalsystems.com
VXL Germany www.vxl3d.com
Weber Kronach, Germany www.hansweber.de/en
Weisser St. Georgen, Germany www.weisser-web.com
Winforsys Beijing, China www.winforsys.com
Xerion Berlin Laboratories Berlin, Germany www.xerion.de
Xolo Berlin, Germany www.xolo3d.com
Market forecast The AM industry is recovering from the impact of the pandemic. Some
growth in 2021 can be attributed to pent-up demand from 2020. As
and opportunity restrictions were lifted, companies resumed investment in R&D and are
expanding their capabilities.
From 2010 through 2019, AM industry growth averaged 27.4% annually.

In 2020, the AM industry grew 7.5%, which was better than many
anticipated because pandemic restrictions were in full force. In 2021, the
AM industry grew 19.5% due to an appetite for products and services after
a year of uncertainty and scaled-back investment.
Wohlers Associates predicts that industrial growth will continue at a

relatively strong pace. The following chart provides a forecast (gray) in
billions of dollars. These figures assume the manufacturing economy will
not be affected by larger influences, such as a global economic recession.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
The future of the AM industry will be defined by increases in series

production, custom products, automation, improved workflows, and end-
to-end solutions. The AM ecosystem will expand as more companies and
industries embrace the technology for medium and small production runs.
Sectors expected to contribute the most to future growth are aerospace,
healthcare, consumer products, automotive, and energy. Companies will
increase production volumes with AM as materials, machines, and
software improve, mostly from competition.
Organizational leadership and decision makers are beginning to drive the

adoption of AM. Stakeholder awareness and deeper understanding of the
strengths and limitations of AM continue to expand. Companies better
appreciate the importance of DfAM and how it can be a primary factor in
building a case around AM for production applications.
Many organizations understand the value of custom and personalized

products. Customers are willing to pay a premium for a product designed
specifically for them, even if the personalization is subtle. Families of
custom products usually have a common form but vary based on customer
differences. Eyewear, footwear, hearing devices, and jewelry are examples.
An expanding catalog of custom consumer products is contributing to what
makes AM so interesting with such promise.
Industry standards are playing a key role and will become even more
important as AM expands and matures. Standards development
organizations, including ASTM International, are working to create
standards and guidelines in many areas. Among them are materials,
processes, testing, design, data, applications, terminology, environment,
health, and safety. Standards have greatly benefited diverse industries over
the past 100+ years. The development and adoption of standards for AM
will have a similar impact and will help advance the technology to new
levels.
3D-printed electronics, food, medicine, living tissue, and buildings are

expected to gain traction in the coming years. Meanwhile, the use of AM for
concept modeling, prototyping, and tooling—applications upon which the
AM industry was built—will continue to thrive. Education and technical
training will prepare young people and the current workforce for what is
ahead. This learning will help them make good decisions and apply much-
needed skills at many organizations worldwide.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
It took the AM industry 20 years to reach $1 billion in size. Five years later,
the industry generated its second $1 billion. Over the past 10 years (2012–
2021), the industry grew by $13.5 billion. At $15.244 billion in 2021, AM is
expected to nearly double in size to $29.8 billion by 2025. Wohlers
Associates forecasts it will expand by 5.6 times to $85.3 billion by 2031.
According to the World Bank, the global economy was about $89.4 trillion
in 2021. A study by it, with data from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, estimates manufacturing accounts for
about 15.9% of the global economy. Manufacturing is estimated to be $14.2
trillion in 2021, so the AM industry represents only about 0.1% of all
manufacturing worldwide. Wohlers Associates believes that AM will one
day exceed 5% of the manufacturing economy and grow to more than $710
billion.
Report summary The AM industry has grown from a small community to a global movement
of innovators, entrepreneurs, and professionals. From small businesses to
large corporations in most industrial sectors, many are asking what AM
can do for them. The use of AM has developed from a few applications
related to modeling and prototyping to a far-reaching technology of critical
importance. Governments around the world see the adoption of AM as a
strategic benefit on multiple levels.
The continued impact of the pandemic on the global supply chain and
economy provides opportunities for new ways of solving problems and
doing business. The pandemic has brought to light the strengths of the
technology. They include consolidating assemblies into fewer parts,
improved product performance, and supply-chain simplification. Countless
individuals are creating new designs that were unthinkable years ago.
In 2021, the industry saw an increase in the number of mergers and

acquisitions, while several other companies began to trade shares on the
stock market. Privately held companies are receiving impressive rounds of
investment, giving them the resources to advance their product and
service offerings and expand their market reach. The investment
community is optimistic and betting part of its future on the success of AM.
With all the progress, AM continues to face obstacles. They range from
material characterization and qualification to improving efficiency and
quality inspection. Over the past several years, the industry has shifted
much of its fundamental research to applied R&D. Other areas of interest
are improving speed, repeatability, automation, and supporting a greater
number of materials and applications.
Wohlers Associates has worked tirelessly for the past 27 years to

understand and document the current state of the AM and 3D printing
industry. The company believes that if you understand the present, you
have a chance of visualizing the future. This body of work has helped us
gain a sense of where AM is headed, and we hope it has done the same for
you and your organization.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Part 8: System Manufacturers
Part 8: System Manufacturers

Manufacturers of industrial additive manufacturing (AM) systems are
presented geographically on the following pages. Included are the most
prominent companies from around the world with known commercial
activity. The high growth rate of new companies and systems makes the
task of tracking them more involved.
A division between “industrial” and “desktop” manufacturers was

established years ago when the first low-cost RepRap printers were
commercialized. After careful consideration, Wohlers Associates chose a
price of $5,000 as a dividing line between the two classes of systems. That
decision has served for more than a decade.
The distinction between “industrial” and “desktop” machines has blurred.

Many material extrusion (MEX) systems that are much larger than but
similar to desktop systems are priced well above $5,000. Meanwhile, many
vat photopolymerization (VPP) systems are priced less than $5,000 and
compete favorably with machines that are more expensive. Even so, this
report adheres to the established convention.
The “Manufacturer, process, and material matrix” section captures the AM

processes and materials employed by the manufacturers presented on the
following pages. A table titled “Additional system manufacturers” includes
companies that are small, in early stages of development, and/or have sold
few systems.
Several manufacturers are developing new technologies, but their AM

systems were not commercially available at the time of publishing this
report. Many are covered in the “New AM companies” section in Part 7.
Several companies have proprietary processes and/or materials but do not
sell machines. Instead, they are producing with their machines and selling
parts.
The following are the abbreviations for the AM processes discussed in this
section.
MEX = material extrusion VPP = vat photopolymerization

MJT = material jetting PBF = powder bed fusion
BJT = binder jetting DED = directed energy deposition
SHL = sheet lamination
Asia/Pacific Many companies in the Asia/Pacific region develop and sell industrial AM
systems. Japan was a pioneer in the development of AM in the 1980s.
China has risen as a prominent producer of systems in recent years.
Manufacturers of AM systems and their products are profiled on the
following pages.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Aspect Aspect has produced and sold polymer PBF systems for 2.5 decades. The
company is also a veteran service provider.
Aspect, Inc.
Tokyo, Japan
First AM system sale: 2006
www.aspect.jpn.com
Chemical and heat resistant duct,

courtesy of Aspect
Model name Build volume, Materials ~Base

PBF (polymer) mm (in) x 1,000
RaFaEl II plus 300 300 x 300 x 420 PP, PA, glass-filled PA, glass- ¥50,000
(11.8 x 11.8 x 16.5) filled PA6, FPA, PBT, glass-
filled PBT
RaFaEl II plus 550 550 x 550 x 520 same as above ¥52,000
(21.7 x 21.7 x 20.5)
RaFaEl II 150-HT 135 x 135 x 200 PPS, glass-filled PPS, carbon- ¥56,000
(5.3 x 5.3 x 7.8) filled PPS, PFA, PP, PA, glass-
filled PA, glass-filled PA6, FPA,
PBT, glass-filled PBT
PBT, glass-filled PBT, fire-
retardant PA, fire-retardant
PA6
PBT, glass-filled PBT
Bright Laser Bright Laser Technologies, also referred to as BLT, grew out of research
Technologies conducted at Northwestern Polytechnical University in China. The
company produces metal PBF and DED systems.
Xi’an Bright Laser Technologies Co., Ltd.

Xi’an, China
www.xa-blt.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Engine part manufactured on the BLT-S800

system, courtesy of BLT

PBF (metal) mm (in) x 1,000
BLT-A160/A160D 160 x 160 x 100 titanium alloys, cobalt-chrome –
(6.3 x 6.3 x 3.9) alloys
BLT-A300/A320 250 x 250 x 300 titanium alloys, aluminum alloys, $182
(5.9 x 5.9 x 7.9) stainless steel, tool steel, copper
alloy, superalloys
BLT-S210 105 x 105 x 200 titanium alloys, aluminum alloys, $165
(4.1 x 4.1 x 7.9) stainless steel, tool steel, cobalt-
chrome alloys, superalloys,
copper, tantalum, tungsten,
magnesium
BLT-S310 250 x 250 x 400 titanium alloys, aluminum alloys, $308
(9.8 x 9.8 x 15.7) stainless steel, tool steel, copper
alloy, superalloys, tool steel
BLT-S320 250 x 250 x 400 same as above $408
(9.8 x 9.8 x 15.7)
BLT-S400 400 x 250 x 400 same as above $452
(15.7 x 9.8 x 15.7)
BLT-S450 400 x 400 x 500 same as above –
(15.7 x 15.7 x 19.7)
BLT-S450T 400 x 450 x 500 same as above –
(15.7 x 17.7 x 19.7)
BLT-S450Q 450 x 450 x 500 same as above –
(17.7 x 17.7 x 19.7)
BLT-S510 500 x 500 x 1,000 same as above –
(19.7 x 19.7 x 39.4)
(23.6 x 23.6 x 23.6)
(31.5 x 31.5 x 23.6)
DED
BLT-C400 400 x 400 x 400 titanium alloy, aluminum, cobalt- –
(15.7 x 15.7 x 15.7) chrome alloy, stainless steel,
high-strength steel, tool steel
BLT-C600 600 x 600 x 1,000 titanium alloys, stainless steel $600
(23.6 x 23.6 x 39.4)
BLT-C1000 1,500 x 1,000 x 1,000 titanium alloys, high-strength $850
(59.1 x 39.4 x 39.4) and stainless steel, superalloys
Eplus3D Eplus3D produces metal and polymer PBF and VPP systems for industrial
production applications.
Eplus3D Tech. Co, Ltd.

Hangzhou, China
www.eplus3d.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Inconel nozzle, courtesy of Eplus3D

EP-C5050 500 x 500 x 500 PP, PE, TPU, TPE, PA, PS $145
(19.7 x 19.7 x 19.7)
EP-C7250 720 x 720 x 500 PS, foundry sand $200
(28.3 x 28.3 x 19.7)
EP-P380 380 x 380 x 500 PA11, PA12, glass-filled PA6, $220
(15 x 15 x 19.7) PP
EP-P420 420 x 420 x 465 PA11, PA12, PA6, glass-filled $250
(16.5 x 16.5 x 18.3) PA6
PBF (metal)
EP-M100 120 x 120 x 80 stainless steel, cobalt-chrome, $140
(3.9 x 3.9 x 3.1) titanium alloys, nickel alloys, tool
steel, aluminum alloy
EP-M150 150 dia. x 120 same as above $150
(5.9 dia. x 3.9)
EP-M150Pro 153 dia. x 240 same as above $200
(6 dia. x 9.4)
EP-M250 250 x 250 x 300 same as above $400
(9.8 x 9.8 x 11.8)
EP-M250Pro 262 x 262 x 350 same as above $510
(10.3 x 10.3 x 13.8)
(10.5 x 10.5 x 15.4)
(12 x 12 x 17.7)
(17.7 x 17.7 x 17.7)
EP-M450H 455 x 455 x 1,100 same as above $1,000
(17.9 x 17.9 x 43.3)
EP-M650 650 x 650 x 800 same as above $1,500
(25.6 x 25.6 x 31.5)
VPP
EP-A350 350 x 350 x 300 photopolymer $55
(13.8 x 13.8 x 11.8)
EP-A450 450 x 450 x 400 same as above $60
(17.7 x 17.7 x 15.7)
(25.6 x 23.6 x 15.7)
(31.5 x 31.5 x 17.7)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Farsoon Farsoon, founded by industry veteran Xu Xiaoshu in 2009, added metal AM

machines to its lineup of PBF systems in 2015.
Farsoon Technologies
Hunan, China
www.farsoon.com
Rocket engine combustion chamber printed on

FS621M-4 in Inconel, courtesy of Farsoon

eForm 250 x 250 x 320 PA, fiber-, glass-, and mineral- $120
(9.8 x 9.8 x 12.6) reinforced PA, PP, elastomers
HT252P 250 x 250 x 320 PA, fiber-, glass-, and mineral- $195
(9.8 x 9.8 x 12.6) reinforced PA, PA6, PP
elastomers
ST252P 250 x 250 x 320 PA, fiber-, glass-, and mineral- $275
(9.8 x 9.8 x 12.6) reinforced PA, PA6, PP, PPS,
elastomers
Flight HT252P 250 x 250 x 320 PA, fiber-, glass-, and mineral- –
(9.8 x 9.8 x 12.6) reinforced PA, PA6, PP, PPS,
PEKK, elastomers
HS403P 400 x 400 x 450 PA, fiber-, glass-, and mineral- $220
(15.7 x 15.7 x 17.7) reinforced PA, PP, elastomers
SS403P 400 x 400 x 450 same as above $265
(15.7 x 15.7 x 17.7)
HT403P 400 x 400 x 450 same as above $275
(15.7 x 15.7 x 17.7)
Flight HT403P 400 x 400 x 450 same as above $320
(15.7 x 15.7 x 17.7)
400 x 400 x 540 same as above –
(15.7 x 15.7 x 21.3)
HT1001P 1,000 x 500 x 450 same as above $820
(dual laser) (39.4 x 19.7 x 17.7)
PBF (metal)
FS121M 120 x 120 x 100 cobalt-chrome, bronze, Inconel, $180
(4.7 x 4.7 x 3.9) maraging steel, stainless steel
FS273M 275 x 275 x 355 aluminum, cobalt-chrome, $350
(10.8 x 10.8 x 14) bronze, Inconel, maraging steel,
stainless steel, titanium
FS273M-2 275 x 275 x 355 same as above –
(dual laser) (10.8 x 10.8 x 14)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
FS301M 305 x 305 x 400 aluminum, Inconel, stainless $480

(12.0 x 12.0 x 15.7) steel, titanium
(dual laser) (12.0 x 12.0 x 15.7)
FS421M 425 x 425 x 420 aluminum, bronze, Inconel, $780
(single laser) (16.7 x 16.7 x 16.5) stainless steel, titanium
(dual laser) (16.7 x 16.7 x 16.5)
FS621M 620 x 620 x 1100 aluminum, Inconel, stainless $1,850
(24.4 x 24.4 x 43.3) steel, titanium
(quad laser) (24.4 x 24.4 x 43.3)
FS721M 720 x 420 x 420 aluminum, Inconel, maraging $1,400
(dual laser) (28.3 x 16.5 x 16.5) steel, stainless steel, titanium
(quad laser) (28.3 x 16.5 x 16.5)
Mimaki Mimaki was founded in 1975 as an inkjet printer manufacturer, which

launched a full-color polymer MJT 3D printer in 2017.
Mimaki Engineering Co., Ltd.

Nagano, Japan
www.mimaki.com
Full-color electric guitar body, courtesy

of Olaf Diegel and Mimaki

MJT mm (in) x 1,000
3DUJ-2207 203 x 203 x 76 photopolymer $40
(8 x 8 x 3)
3DUJ-553 508 x 508 x 305 same as above $180
(20 x 20 x 12)
UnionTech Union Technology, also called UnionTech, is a pioneer of stereolithography

systems in China and has been actively promoting its products in Europe
and the Americas since 2016.
Shanghai Union Technology Corp.

Shanghai, China
www.uniontech3d.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Audio speaker cover for an end-use application,

courtesy of UnionTech

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
S110 110 x 63 x 85 photopolymer –
(4.3 x 2.5 x 3.3)
S300 250 x 140 x 240 same as above –
(9.8 x 5.5 x 9.4)
E120 120 x 68 x 80 same as above –
(4.7 x 2.7 x 3.1)
E140 144 x 81 x 80 same as above –
(5.7 x 3.2 x 3.1)
Cute 300 250 x 140 x 240 same as above –
(9.8 x 5.5 x 9.4)
Cute 380 384 x 216 x 300 same as above –
(15.1 x 8.5 x 11.8)
D600 600 x 600 x 100 same as above –
(23.6 x 23.6 x 3.9)
D800 768 x 432 x 30 same as above –
(30.2 x 17 x 1.2)
PILOT 250 250 x 250 x 250 same as above $98
(9.8 x 9.8 x 9.8)
PILOT 450 450 x 450 x 450 same as above $136
(17.7 x 17.7 x 17.7)
Lite 450 450 x 450 x 350 same as above
(17.7 x 17.7 x 13.8)
(23.6 x 23.6 x 15.7)
(31.5 x 31.5 x 21.7)
RSPro600 600 x 600 x 500 same as above $276
(23.6 x 23.6 x 19.7)
RSPro800 800 x 800 x 550 same as above $362
(31.5 x 31.5 x 21.7)
RSPro1400 1,400 x 700 x 500 same as above –
(55.1 x 27.6 x 19.7)
RSPro2100 2,100 x 700 x 800 same as above –
(82.7 x 27.6 x 31.5)
XYZprinting XYZprinting, a subsidiary of the New Kinpo Group, offers industrial and
desktop polymer AM systems.
XYZprinting, Inc.
New Taipei City, Taiwan
First industrial AM system sale: 2017
www.xyzprinting.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Color model, courtesy

of XYZprinting

MEX mm (in) x 1,000
PartPro200 xTCS 185 x 185 x 150 PLA, PETG, carbon fiber –
(full color) (7.2 x 7.2 x 5.9)
PartPro200 xTCS 200 x 200 x 150 same as above –
(mono color) (7.9 x 7.9 x 5.9)
PartPro300 xT 195 x 270 x 300 ABS, PLA, PETG, PC, carbon- –
(single extruder) (7.7 x 10.6 x 11.8) and metal-filled PLA, soluble
support
PartPro300 xT 295 x 300 x 300 same as above –
(dual extruder) (11.6 x 11.8 x 11.8)
BJT
PartPro350 xBC 350 x 222 x 200 full-color composite $30
(13.8 x 8.7 x 7.9)
PBF (polymer)
MfgPro230 xS 230 x 230 x 230 PA12, TPU $60
(9.1 x 9.1 x 9.1)
MfgPro236 xS 230 x 230 x 250 PA12, PA11, carbon-fiber PA11, –
(9.1 x 9.1 x 9.8) PA6, reinforced PA6, TPU
VPP
PartPro100 xP 64 x 40 x 120 photopolymer –
(2.5 x 1.6 x 4.7)
PartPro120 xP 114 x 64 x 100 same as above –
(4.5 x 2.5 x 4)
PartPro150 xP 150 x 150 x 200 same as above –
(5.9 x 5.9 x 7.9)
ZRapid ZRapid, founded in 2011, manufactures a wide range of machines,

including a metal and polymer PBF systems.
ZRapid Technologies Co., Ltd.

Suzhou, China
www.zero-tek.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Propeller printed on iSLM280, courtesy of ZRapid

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
iSLA200 200 x 160 x 150 photopolymer –
(7.9 x 6.3 x 5.9)
iSLA300 300 x 300 x 200 same as above –
(11.8 x 11.8 x 7.9)
(17.7 x 17.7 x 11.8)
(19.7 x 15.7 x 11.8)
(19.7 x 19.7 x 11.8)
iSLA550Lite 500 x 500 x 300 same as above –
(19.7 x 19.7 x 11.8)
iSLA550Ex 500 x 500 x 300 same as above –
(19.7 x 19.7 x 11.8)
(23.6 x 23.6 x 11.8)
iSLA660Lite 600 x 600 x 300 same as above –
(23.6 x 23.6 x 11.8)
(23.6 x 14.2 x 11.8)
(31.5 x 31.5 x 15.7)
iSLA1100 1,000 x 1,000 x 600 same as above –
(39.4 x 39.4 x 23.6)
iSLA1400D 1,400 x 800 x 600 same as above –
(55.1 x 31.5 x 23.6)
iSLA1600D 1,600 x 800 x 600 same as above –
(63 x 31.5 x 23.6)
iSLA1900D 1,900 x 1,000 x 600 same as above –
(70.9 x 39.4 x 23.6)
iAMC150 150 x 150 x 100 alumina, zirconia –
(5.9 x 5.9 x 3.9)
PBF (metal)
iSLM100 110 x 110 x 100 stainless steel, tool steel, –
(4.3 x 4.3 x 3.9) titanium, aluminum, cobalt-
chrome, nickel alloy, copper
iSLM150 150 x 150 x 200 same as above –
(5.9 x 5.9 x 7.9)
(11 x 11 x 13.8)
(16.5 x 16.5 x 17.7)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
iSLM420D 420 x 420 x 450 same as above –

(16.5 x 16.5 x 17.7)
iSLM500D 500 x 400 x 800 same as above –
(19.7 x 15.7 x 31.5)
iDEN160 160 x 160 x 100 titanium, cobalt-chrome –
(6.3 x 6.3 x 3.9)
PBF (polymer)
iSLS300 300 x 300 x 300 PA12 –
(11.8 x 11.8 x 11.8)
iSLS400 400 x 400 x 400 same as above –
(15.7 x 15.7 x 15.7)
Germany Several prominent producers of AM systems are located in Germany. The

country remains a strong player, especially in metal AM.
Arburg Arburg, an established manufacturer of injection-molding machines,

produces AM systems that form parts from thermoplastic pellets. The
owners of Arburg Group (the Hehl and Keinath family) purchased German
RepRap in 2020 and rebranded the company as InnovatiQ.
ARBURGadditive GmbH + Co KG
Lossburg, Germany
www.arburg.com
Surgical implant (green), courtesy of Arburg

MEX (variant) mm (in) x 1,000
Freeformer 200-3x 154 x 134 x 230 standard thermoplastic pellets/ €150
(6.1 x 5.3 x 9.1) granulates
Freeformer 300-3x 234 x 134 x 230 same as above –
(9.2 x 5.2 x 9.0)
BigRep BigRep produces large-format MEX machines and partners with material
suppliers.
BigRep GmbH
Berlin, Germany
www.bigrep.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Custom center console for a car, courtesy of BigRep

MEX mm (in) x 1,000
BigRep ONE 1,005 x 1,005 x 1,005 PLA, PVA, PETG, PRO HT, €52.5
(39.6 x 39.6 x 39.6) TPU, PLX, soluble support
BigRep STUDIO 1,000 x 500 x 500 PLA, PA6, PA66, ABS, ASA, €52.5
G2 (39.4 x 19.7 x 19.7) PET-CF, TPU, PVA, PETG,
PRO HT, PLX, soluble support
BigRep PRO 1,200 x 970 x 985 PA6, PA66, ASA, PETG, PRO €165
(47.2 x 38.2 x 38.8) HT, soluble support
DMG Mori DMG Mori is a German-Japanese producer of computer numerical control

(CNC) machine tools, PBF, and DED hybrid AM systems.
DMG Mori Co., Ltd.

Bielefeld, Germany
www.dmgmori.com
Turbine housing, courtesy of DMG Mori

LASERTEC 12 125 x 125 x 200 aluminum, stainless steel, –
SLM (4.9 x 4.9 x 7.9) titanium, cobalt-chrome, tool
steel, nickel alloy, copper, and
copper alloy
LASERTEC 30 300 x 300 x 300 same as above –
DUAL SLM (11.8 x 11.8 x 11.8)
DED
LASERTEC 65 735 x 650 x 560 stainless steel, duplex steels, –
DED (28.9 x 25.6 x 22) tool steels, high-speed steels,
nickel alloys, copper alloys,
cobalt alloys, aluminum, noble
metal alloys

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
DED (hybrid)
LASERTEC 65 735 x 650 x 560 stainless steel, duplex steels, –
DED Hybrid (28.9 x 25.6 x 22) tool steels, high-speed steels,
nickel alloys, copper alloys,
cobalt alloys
LASERTEC 125 1,336 x 1,250 x 750 same as above –
DED Hybrid (52.6 x 49.2 x 35.4)
LASERTEC 3000 670 dia. x 932 same as above –
DED Hybrid (26.4 dia. x 36.7)
400 dia. x 1,321 same as above –
(15.7 dia. x 52)
LASERTEC 4300 660 dia. x 660 same as above –
3D Hybrid (26 dia. x 26)
546 dia. x 1,500 same as above –
(21.5 dia. x 59.1)
EOS EOS is a privately owned manufacturer of PBF systems and materials and
offers related consulting services.
EOS GmbH
Krailling, Germany
www.eos.info
Titanium motocross footrest,

courtesy of Pankl and EOS

FORMIGA P 110 200 x 250 x 330 PA12, glass- and aluminum- €130
Velocis (7.9 x 9.8 x 13) filled PA12, PA11, PP
FORMIGA P 110 200 x 250 x 330 PA11 €200
FDR (7.9 x 9.8 x 13)
EOS P 396 340 x 340 x 600 PA12, glass- and aluminum- €267
(13.4 x 13.4 x 23.6) filled PA12, fire-retardant PA12,
PA11, carbon-filled PA11, fire-
retardant PA11, PP, TPU
Integra P 450 420 x 420 x 500 PA12, glass-filled PA12, PA11 €350
(U.S. Only) (16.5 x 16.5 x 19.7)
EOS P 500 500 x 330 x 400 PA12 €650
(19.7 x 13 x 15.7)
EOS P 770 700 x 380 x 580 PA12, glass- and aluminum- €599
(27.6 x 15 x 22.9) filled PA12, fire-retardant PA12,
PA11, TPU
EOS P 810 700 x 380 x 380 carbon-filled PAEK €599
(27.6 x 15 x 15)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
PBF (metal)
EOS M 100 100 dia. x 95 cobalt-chrome, stainless steel, €200
(3.9 dia. x 3.7) titanium, tungsten
EOS M 290 250 x 250 x 325 cobalt-chrome, titanium, €480
(9.8 x 9.8 x 12.8) stainless steel, maraging steel,
tool steel, nickel alloy,
aluminum, copper
EOS M 300-4 300 x 300 x 400 maraging steel, nickel alloy, €1,000
(11.8 x 11.8 x 15.8) titanium, stainless steel,
aluminum
EOS M 400 400 x 400 x 400 aluminum, titanium, maraging €1,250
(15.8 x 15.8 x 15.8) steel, nickel alloy, copper
EOS M 400-4 400 x 400 x 400 aluminum, stainless and €1,420
(15.8 x 15.8 x 15.8) maraging steels, titanium, nickel
alloy
SLM Solutions SLM Solutions is a publicly traded manufacturer of metal PBF machines.
SLM Solutions GmbH

Lübeck, Germany
www.slm-solutions.com
Krueger flap actuator bracket, courtesy of

Asco Industries and SLM Solutions

SLM 125 125 x 125 x 125 stainless steel, tool steel, €195
(4.9 x 4.9 x 4.9) aluminum, titanium, Hastelloy X,
cobalt-chrome, Inconel 718 and
625
SLM 280 2.0 280 x 280 x 365 same as above €450
(11 x 11 x 14.4)
SLM 280 280 x 280 x 365 same as above –
Production Series (11 x 11 x 14.4)
SLM 500 500 x 280 x 365 same as above €700
(19.7 x 11 x 14.4)
SLM 800 500 x 280 x 850 same as above €2,000–
(19.7 x 11 x 33.5) 3,000
NXG XII 600 600 x 600 x 600 same as above –
(23.6 x 23.6 x 23.6)
Trumpf Trumpf has manufactured optical systems since 1923 and offers metal PBF
and DED systems.
Trumpf GmbH & Co. KG

Ditzingen, Germany
www.trumpf.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Tool insert for tracheal tube printed on a

TruPrint 3000, courtesy of Trumpf

TruPrint 1000 100 dia. x 100 stainless steel, tool steel, cobalt- –
(3.9 dia. x 3.9) chrome, aluminum, nickel alloys,
Multi-plate option copper, titanium alloy, precious
metals, amorphous metals
TruPrint 1000 100 dia. x 100 same as above –
(dual laser) (3.9 dia. x 3.9)
TruPrint 1000 97 dia. x 100 copper, copper alloys, precious –
Green Edition (3.8 dia. x 3.9) metals
TruPrint 2000 200 dia. x 200 stainless steel, tool steel, cobalt- –
(7.8 dia. x 7.8) chrome, aluminum, nickel alloys,
titanium alloy, amorphous
metals, tungsten
TruPrint 3000 300 dia. x 400 stainless steel, tool steel, –
(11.8 dia. x 15.8) aluminum, nickel alloys, titanium
alloy
(tri laser) (11.8 dia. x 15.8)
290 dia. x 390 stainless steel, tool steel, –
(11.4 dia. x 15.4) aluminum, nickel alloys, titanium
alloy, H11 and H13 tool steel
DED
TruLaser Cell 3000 800 x 600 x 400 tool steels, stainless steel, –
(31 x 23.6 x 16) carbides and matrices,
aluminum alloys, titanium alloys,
nickel alloys, copper alloys
TruLaser Cell 7040 4,000 x 1,500 x 750 same as above –
(157 x 59 x 30)
4,000 x 2,000 x 750 same as above –
(157 x 79 x 30)
DepositionLine integration into same as above –
technology package customer CNC
machine or robot

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Voxeljet Voxeljet manufactures large industrial BJT systems for investment casting
patterns and sand-casting molds and cores, as well as PBF systems for
functional prototypes.
Voxeljet AG
Friedberg, Germany
First AM system sale: 2002 (under Generis)
www.voxeljet.com
Sand core, courtesy of Voxeljet

BJT mm (in) x 1,000
VX200 300 x 200 x 150 PMMA, sand, ceramic €125
(11.8 x 7.9 x 5.9)
VX500 500 x 400 x 300 same as above €336
(19.7 x 15.8 x 11.8)
VX1000 1,000 x 600 x 500 same as above €559
(41.7 x 23.6 x 19.7)
(51.2 x 23.6 x 7.9)
VX2000 2,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 sand €655
(78.7 x 39.4 x 39.4)
VX4000 4,000 x 2,000 x 1,000 same as above €1,494
(157.5 x 78.7 x 39.4)
PBF (polymer)
VX200 290 x 140 x 180 PA12, PP, TPU, EVA €169
(11.4 x 5.5 x 7.1)
(41.7 x 21.3 x 15.8)
Other companies in Many companies in Europe and the Middle East manufacture industrial
AM systems.
Europe and the
Middle East
Additive Industries Additive Industries produces modular metal AM systems that can
automate up to eight builds without operator intervention.
Additive Industries B.V.

Eindhoven, Netherlands
www.additiveindustries.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
150 kg (330 lbs) aerospace part,

courtesy of Additive Industries

MetalFABG2 420 x 420 x 400 stainless steel, tool steel, €895
Core (16.5 x 16.5 x 15.8) aluminum alloy, titanium alloy,
nickel alloys
MetalFABG2 420 x 420 x 400 same as above €1,750
Automation (16.5 x 16.5 x 15.8)
MetalFABG2 420 x 420 x 400 same as above €2,186
Continuous (16.5 x 16.5 x 15.8)
Production
AddUp AddUp, a joint venture between Michelin and Fives, produces metal PBF
machines and support equipment. AddUp acquired BeAM in 2018.
AddUp
Cébazat, France
www.addupsolutions.com
Section of a heat exchanger,

courtesy of AddUp

FormUp 350 350 x 350 x 350 stainless steel, maraging steel, €730
(13.8 x 13.8 x 13.8) aluminum alloys, Inconel,
titanium, aluminum

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Admatec Admatec produces VPP machines, furnaces, and resins for producing
ceramic and metal parts.
Admatec BV
Alkmaar, Netherlands
www.admateceurope.com
Ceramic instrument for optical interferometry,

courtesy of Admatec

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
Admaflex 130 160 x 100 x 400 aluminum oxide, zirconium
(6.3 x 3.9 x 15.7) oxide, silica, alumina, cordierite, $145
steatite, SiAlON, silicon carbide,
hydroxyapatite, stainless steel,
Inconel 625, copper
Admaflex 300 260 x 220 x 500 same as above
(10.2 x 8.7 x 19.7) $320
Admaflex 300 102 x 64 x 100 same as above with two $440
MultiMaterial (4.0 x 2.5 x 3.9) materials simultaneously
BeAM BeAM, acquired by AddUp in 2018, produces DED systems that the
company calls laser metal deposition.
BeAM S.A.S.
Strasbourg, France
www.beam-machines.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Piston made with hybrid PBF (bottom) and

DED (top), courtesy of BeAM

DED mm (in) x 1,000
Modulo 250 400 x 250 x 300 stainless steel, titanium alloys, €350–
(15.7 x 9.8 x 11.8) Inconel alloys, Stellite, tool 700
steels, Waspalloy, Hatfield steel,
copper alloys
Modulo 400 600 x 400 x 400 same as above –
(23.6 x 15.7 x 15.7)
Magic 800 1,200 x 800 x 800 same as above €900–
(47.2 x 31.5 x 31.5) 1,300
Digital Metal As a unit of Höganäs, Digital Metal produces a BJT system for printing
small, complex metal parts.
Digital Metal
Höganäs, Sweden
www.digitalmetal.tech
Copper heat sink, courtesy

of Digital Metal

BJT mm (in) x 1,000
DM P2500 250 x 217 x 70 stainless steel, titanium alloy, –
(9.8 x 8.5 x 2.8) DM625 and DM247 superalloys,
tool steel, copper
250 x 217 x 186 same as above €495
(9.8 x 8.5 x 7.3)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
DWS DWS manufactures VPP systems for the jewelry, dental, and general
engineering segments.
DWS srl
Thiene, Italy
www.dwssystems.com
Investment tree (right) and cast

part (left), courtesy of DWS

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
XFab 2500SD 180 dia. x 180 photopolymer €7
(7.1 dia. x 7.1)
XFab 2500HD 180 dia. x 180 same as above €9
(7.1 dia. x 7.1)
XFab 2500PD 180 dia. x 180 same as above €9
(7.1 dia. x 7.1)
XFab 3500SD 140 x 140 x 180 same as above €14
(5.5 x 5.5 x 7.1)
XFab 3500HD 140 x 140 x 180 same as above €19
(5.5 x 5.5 x 7.1)
XFab 3500PD 160 x 160 x 180 same as above €24
(6.3 x 6.3 x 7.1)
LFAB 50 x 20 x 40 same as above €20
(2 x 0.8 x 1.6)
DFAB Desktop 50 x 20 x 40 same as above €34
(2 x 0.8 x 1.6)
DFAB Chairside 50 x 20 x 40 same as above €39
(2 x 0.8 x 1.6)
DW 028J Plus 90 x 90 x 90 same as above €49
(2.6 x 2.6 x 3.5)
DW 029JL2 110 x 110 x 100 same as above €70
(4.3 x 4.3 x 2.8)
DW 029X 150 x 150 x 100 same as above €89
(5.9 x 5.9 x 3.9)
DW 029XC 170 x 170 x 200 same as above €98
(6.7 x 6.7 x 7.9)
XPRO S 300 x 300 x 300 same as above €110
(11.8 x 11.8 x 11.8)
XPRO SL 300 x 300 x 500 same as above €140
(11.8 x 11.8 x 19.7)
XPRO Q 300 x 300 x 300 same as above €280
(11.8 x 11.8 x 11.8)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Lithoz Lithoz produces VPP systems and materials for engineering and
bioresorbable ceramics.
Lithoz GmbH
Vienna, Austria
www.lithoz.com
Bone implant prototype made from two

materials, courtesy of Lithoz

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
CeraFab Lab L30 76 x 43 x 170 alumina, zirconia, alumina- €150
(3 x 1.7 x 6.7) zirconia composites, tricalcium
phosphate, silica-based
materials, silicon nitride,
aluminum nitride, cordierite,
magnesia, dielectric ceramics,
hydroxyapatite, bioglass, glass-
ceramics, piezoceramics
CeraFab System 64 x 40 x 320 same as above –
S25 (2.5 x 1.6 x 12.6)
CeraFab System 102 x 64 x 320 same as above €315
S65 (4 x 2.5 x 12.6)
CeraFab System 192 x 120 x 320 same as above –
S230 (7.6 x 4.7 x 12.6)
CeraFab System 102 x 64 x 320 aluminum oxide, hydroxyapatite, –
S65 Medical (4 x 2.5 x 12.6) silicon nitride, tricalcium
phosphate, zirconium oxide
CeraFab Multi 76 x 43 x 170 ceramics, metals, polymers –
2M30 (3 x 1.7 x 6.7)
Prodways Prodways offers AM systems using its proprietary MovingLight, Rapid

Additive Forging, and other technologies.
Prodways Technologies
Les Mureaux, France
www.prodways.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Master pattern for casting,

courtesy of Prodways

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
ProMaker LD10 300 x 445 x 200 photopolymers €99
Dental Models (11.8 x 17.5 x 7.9)
ProMaker LD10 300 x 445 x 200 same as above €99
Dental Plus (11.8 x 17.5 x 7.9)
Dental Models (11.8 x 17.5 x 7.9)
Dental Plus (11.8 x 17.5 x 7.9)
PBF (polymer)
ProMaker P1000 300 x 300 x 300 PA12, PA11, glass-filled PA11, €99
(11.8 x 11.8 x 11.8) TPU, PP
ProMaker P1000 X 300 x 300 x 360 same as above €135
(11.8 x 11.8 x 14.2)
ProMaker P1000 S 300 x 300 x 360 same as above –
(11.8 x 11.8 x 14.2)
DED
ProMaker RAF 50 1,200 x 800 x 500 aluminum, stainless steel, –
(47.2 x 31.5 x 19.7) nickel-based steels, tool steels
Renishaw Renishaw has produced coordinate measurement machines since 1973,

and metal PBF machines for more than a decade.
Renishaw plc
New Mills, England
www.renishaw.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Microturbine recuperator,
courtesy of Renishaw

RenAM 500S 250 x 250 x 350 stainless steel, aluminum alloy, £430
(one laser) (9.8 x 9.8 x 13.8) titanium alloy, cobalt-chrome, ($565)
nickel alloy
RenAM 500Q 250 x 250 x 350 stainless steel, tool steel, £655
(four lasers) (9.8 x 9.8 x 13.8) aluminum alloy, titanium alloy, ($860)
cobalt-chrome, nickel alloy,
maraging steel
Sinterit Sinterit produces relatively low-cost polymer PBF systems.
Sinterit sp. z o.o.

Kraków, Poland
www.sinterit.com
Lighting fixture produced on Lisa PRO,

courtesy of STUCCHI and Sinterit

Lisa 90 x 130 x 130 PA12 €6
(3.5 x 5.1 x 5.1)
110 x 150 x 145 TPU, TPE
(4.3 x 5.9 x 5.7)
Lisa PRO 90 x 130 x 230 PA12, PA11 €12
(3.5 x 5.1 x 9)
110 x 150 x 245 TPU, TPE
(4.3 x 5.9 x 9.6)
Lisa X 130 x 180 x 330 PA12, PA11, PP, TPE –
(5.1 x 7.1 x 13)
NILS 480 200 x 200 x 330 same as above –
(7.9 x 7.9 x 13)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Sisma Sisma is a manufacturer of laser marking, welding, and cutting machines,

and offers VPP and metal PBF systems. In 2021, Sisma sold its share in the
metal PBF joint venture business to Trumpf.
Sisma S.p.A.
Vicenza, Italy
www.sisma.com
Jewelry application,
courtesy of Sisma

MYSINT 100 100 dia. x 100 precious metals, titanium alloy, €165
(3.9 dia. x 3.9) cobalt-chrome, steel alloys,
aluminum, nickel alloy, copper
alloy, bronze
MYSINT 100 PM 100 dia. x 100 same as above –
(3.9 dia. x 3.9)
MYSINT 100 RM 100 dia. x 100 same as above –
(3.9 dia. x 3.9)
MYSINT 100 100 dia. x 100 same as above –
PM/RM (3.9 dia. x 3.9)
MYSINT 100 Dual 100 dia. x 100 same as above €220
Laser (3.9 dia. x 3.9)
MYSINT 200 200 dia. x 200 precious metals, titanium alloy, €265
(7.8 dia. x 7.8) cobalt-chrome, steel alloys,
aluminum, nickel alloy
VPP
EVERES ZERO 96 x 54 x 200 photopolymers, casting resin, <€15
(3.8 x 2.1 x 7.9) moldable resin
EVERES UNO 125 x 70 x 200 same as above <€15
(4.9 x 2.8 x 7.9)
Stratasys Industry pioneer Stratasys, which merged with Objet in 2012, produces
MEX, MJT, PBF, and VPP systems. In December 2020, Stratasys acquired
Origin, a manufacturer of VPP systems.
Stratasys
Rehovot, Israel
www.stratasys.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
3D-printed medical models, courtesy of Stratasys

MEX mm (in) x 1,000
F120 254 x 254 x 254 ABS, ASA $12
(10 x 10 x 10)
F170 254 x 254 x 254 PLA, ABS, ASA, TPU $20
(10 x 10 x 10)
F270 305 x 254 x 305 same as above $40
(12 x 10 x 12)
F370 355 x 254 x 355 same as above $60
(14 x 10 x 14)
F770 1,000 x 610 x 610 ABS, ASA –
(39 x 24 x 24)
F900 914 x 610 x 914 ASA, ABS, PC, PA6, PA12, $400
(36 x 24 x 36) Antero, PPSU, PPSF, ULTEM,
carbon-fiber PA12
Fortus 450mc 406 x 355 x 406 ASA, ABS, PC, PC-ABS, PA12, $150
(16 x 14 x 16) ULTEM, Antero, carbon-fiber
PA12
MJT
Objet30 294 x 192 x 149 VeroWhite, VeroBlack, –
(11.6 x 7.6 x 5.9) VeroBlue, VeroGrey, DraftGrey
VeroClear, PP, elastomers
Objet30 Pro 300 x 200 x 150 Vero and VeroVivid color $25
(11.8 x 7.9 x 5.9) materials, Agilus30 flexible
materials, VeroClear and
VeroUltraClear
Objet30 Prime 300 x 200 x 150 same as above $38
(11.8 x 7.9 x 5.9)
Objet260 Connex3 260 x 260 x 200 same as above $100
(10.2 x 10.2 x 7.9)
Objet500 Connex3 500 x 400 x 200 same as above $216
(19.7 x 15.7 x 7.9)
Objet1000 plus 1,000 x 800 x 500 VeroClear, TangoPlus and $500
(39.4 x 31.5 x 19.7) TangoBlackPlus, Vero color,
Rigur (simulated polypropylene)
Objet30 Dental 300 x 200 x 150 acrylic, dental, and $35
Prime (11.8 x 7.9 x 5.9) biocompatible photopolymers
Objet260 Dental 500 x 400 x 200 same as above $119
Selection (19.7 x 15.7 x 7.9)
Objet500 Dental 500 x 400 x 200 same as above $184
Selection (19.7 x 15.7 x 7.9)
J55 140 x 200 x 190 Vero Draft Grey, Vero and –
(5.5 x 7.9 x 7.5) VeroVivid color materials,
VeroClear and VeroUltraClear
J826 255 x 252 x 200 Vero and VeroVivid color $175
materials, VeroClear and
VeroUltraClear

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
J850 490 x 390 x 200 same as above $350

(19.3 x 15.6 x 7.9)
J5 DentaJet 140 x 200 x 190 Vero, Vero color, Vero Glaze, –
(5.5 x 7.9 x 7.5) biocompatable materials
J700 Dental 490 x 390 x 200 acrylic and dental $184
(19.3 x 15.4 x 7.9) photopolymers
J720 Dental 490 x 390 x 200 Vero color materials, Tango and $184
(19.3 x 15.4 x 7.9) Agilus30 flexible materials,
VeroClear
J750 Dental 490 x 390 x 200 Vero and VeroVivid color $369
material, VeroClear and
VeroUltraClear, TissueMatrix,
BoneMatrix
J750 Digital 490 x 390 x 200 Vero and VeroVivid color $350
Anatomy (19.3 x 15.6 x 7.9) materials, Agilus30 flexible
materials, TissueMatrix,
biocompatible clear
PBF (polymer)
H350 315 x 208 x 293 PA11 –

(12.4 x 8.2 x 11.5)
VPP
V650 Flex 508 x 584 x 508 Somos Element, Somos NeXt, $299
(20.0 x 23.0 x 20.0) Somos PerFORM, and Somos
Watershed XC 11122 resins
Origin One 192 x 108 x 370 photopolymers –
(7.5 x 4.3 x 14.5)
Origin One Dental 192 x 108 x 370 dental focused photopolymers –
(7.5 x 4.3 x 14.5)
XJet XJet prints a liquid suspension containing nanoparticles of ceramic or

metal through inkjet print heads to produce parts with soluble supports.
XJet Ltd.
Rehovot, Israel
www.xjet3d.com
Ceramic drill bit with small holes and internal

channels, courtesy of XJet

MJT mm (in) x 1,000
Carmel 1400C 500 x 1,400 x 200 zirconia, alumina $750
(19.7 x 5.5 x 7.9)
Carmel 1400M 500 x 280 x 200 stainless steel $850
(19.7 x 11 x 7.9)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
U.S. A growing number of companies in the U.S. produce industrial AM systems

using a wide range of processes and materials.
3D Systems 3D Systems was the first company to commercialize AM when it launched

stereolithography in 1988. It continues to provide a range of machines
based on several processes obtained through acquisitions.
3D Systems, Inc.
Rock Hill, South Carolina
www.3dsystems.com
Liquid rocket engine injector,

courtesy of 3D Systems

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
ProJet 6000 HD 250 x 250 x 250 photopolymer $168
(10 x 10 x 10)
ProJet 7000 HD 380 x 380 x 250 same as above $243
(15 x 15 x 10)
ProX 800 650 x 750 x 550 photopolymer and 475
(25.6 x 29.5 x 21.6) nanocomposite-filled plastics
ProX 950 1,500 x 750 x 550 photopolymer $990
(59 x 30 x 22)
Figure 4 Production 124.8 x 70.2 x 346 same as above per
(4.9 x 2.8 x 13.6) config.
Figure 4 Modular 124.8 x 70.2 x 346 same as above $45
(4.9 x 2.8 x 13.6)
Figure 4 124.8 x 70.2 x 196 same as above $20
Standalone (4.9 x 2.8 x 7.7)
NextDent 5100 124.8 x 70.2 x 196 dental photopolymer $10
(4.9 x 2.8 x 7.7)
MJT
ProJet MJP 2500 294 x 211 x 144 photopolymer, melt-away $38
(11.6 x 8.3 x 5.7) support material
ProJet MJP 2500 (294 x 211 x 144 same as above $46
Plus (11.6 x 8.3 x 5.7)
ProJet MJP 2500W 294 x 211 x 144 wax, melt-away support $47
RealWax printer (11.6 x 8.3 x 5.7) material
ProJet MJP 2500IC 294 x 211 x 144 same as above $71
(11.6 x 8.3 x 5.7)
(11.8 x 7.3 x 8) support material
ProJet MJP 3600 298 x 185 x 203 same as above $90
Max (11.8 x 7.3 x 8)
ProJet MJP 3600 284 x 185 x 203 same as above $73
Dental (11.2 x 7.3 x 8)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
ProJet MJP 3600W 298 x 185 x 203 wax, melt-away support $85
(11.8 x 7.3 x 8 ) material
ProJet MJP 3600W 298 x 185 x 203 same as above $98
Max (11.8 x 7.3 x 8)
(20.4 x 15 x 11.8) support material
PBF (polymer)
sPro 140 550 x 550 x 460 PA, reinforced plastics $429
(22 x 22 x 18)
sPro 230 550 x 550 x 750 same as above $508
(22 x 22 x 30)
SLS 380 381 x 330 x 460 polyamides, reinforced $240
(15 x 13 x 18) plastics, fire-retardant,
elastomers, polystyrene
PBF (metal)
DMP Flex 100 100 x 100 x 90 cobalt-chrome, stainless steel $199
(3.9 x 3.9 x 3.5)
DMP Dental 100 100 x 100 x 90 cobalt-chrome $199
(3.9 x 3.9 x 3.5)
DMP Flex 200 140 x 140 x 115 cobalt-chrome, titanium $265
(5.5 x 5.5 x 4.5)
DMP Flex 350 275 x 275 x 420 cobalt-chrome, stainless steel, $592
(10.8 x 10.8 x 16.5) maraging steel, aluminum,
titanium, nickel alloy
DMP Factory 350 275 x 275 x 420 stainless steel, maraging $692
(10.8 x 10.8 x 16.5) steel, aluminum, titanium,
nickel alloy
DMP Flex 350 Dual 275 x 275 x 420 titanium, aluminum alloys $700
(10.8 x 10.8 x 16.5)
DMP Factory 350 275 x 275 x 420 same as above $799
Dual (10.8 x 10.8 x 16.5)
DMP Factory 500 500 x 500 x 500 titanium, aluminum, nickel per
(19.7 x 19.7 x 19.7) alloy module
BJT
ProJet CJP 660Pro 254 x 381 x 203 composite (full CMYK colors) $69
(10 x 15 x 8)
ProJet CJP 860Pro 508 x 381 x 229 same as above $114
(20 x 15 x 9)
Carbon Carbon produces VPP systems for prototyping and series production. The
company leases its systems rather than selling them to customers.
Carbon, Inc.
Redwood City, California
www.carbon3d.com
Air vent for the Sián FKP 37, courtesy of

Lamborghini and Carbon

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
M2 189 x 118 x 326 photopolymer, dual cure $50
(7.4 x 4.6 x 12.8) annually
M3 189 x 118 x 326 same as above –
(7.4 x 4.6 x 12.8)
L1 400 x 250 x 460 same as above $250
(15.7 x 9.8 x 18.1) annually
Cincinnati Cincinnati produces large MEX systems for concrete formwork, foundry
patterns, functional prototypes, and other applications.
Cincinnati Incorporated
Harrison, Ohio
www.e-ci.com
Layup tool, courtesy of Cincinnati

MEX mm (in) x 1,000
MAAM 1,015 x 1,015 x 1,000 ABS, PC, PLA, PEI, TPU, $150
(40 x 40 x 39.3) carbon- and glass-filled
polymers
BAAM 606 3,556 x 1,905 x 1,575 ABS, PC, PEI, PPSU, PET, $800
(140 x 75 x 62) TPU, carbon- and glass-filled
polymers
BAAM 608 3,556 x 1,905 x 2,489 same as above $800
(140 x 75 x 98)
BAAM 806 10,846 x 3,886 x 4,369 same as above $1,500
(427 x 153 x 172)
Desktop Metal Desktop Metal produces MEX and BJT systems for producing metal and
composite parts. It acquired Envisiontec, now called ETEC, in February
2021. It spun off and integrated ETEC’s healthcare-focused systems into
Desktop Health. Desktop Metal acquired ExOne in November 2021.
Desktop Metal, Inc.

Burlington, Massachusetts

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Metal powder atomization nozzle, courtesy

of Wall Colmonoy and Desktop Metal

MEX mm (in) x 1,000
Fiber 305 x 245 x 270 carbon-fiber-reinforced PA6, –
(12.2 x 7.9 x 10.6) PEEK, PEKK, fiberglass-
reinforced PA6
BJT
Studio System 2 300 x 200 x 200 stainless steels, tool steels, low- –
(11.8 x 7.9 x 7.9) alloy steels, copper, titanium
Shop System 4L 350 x 220 x 50 stainless steel, cobalt chrome, –
(13.8 x 8.7 x 2) nickel alloys
Shop System 8L 350 x 220 x 100 same as above –
(13.8 x 8.7 x 3.9)
Shop System 12L 350 x 220 x 150 same as above –
(13.8 x 8.7 x 5.9)
Shop System 16L 350 x 220 x 200 same as above $150
(13.8 x 8.7 x 7.9)
Production System 200 x 100 x 40 stainless steels, tool steels, low- $350
P-1 (7.9 x 3.9 x 1.6) alloy steels, copper, nickel
alloys, titanium, aluminum
Production System 490 x 380 x 260 same as above $1,000+
P-50 (19.3 x 15 x 10.2)
Essentium Essentium creates industrial MEX systems for high-temperature

thermoplastics.
Essentium, Inc.
Pflugerville, Texas
www.essentium.com
Custom fixture, courtesy of Essentium

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

MEX mm (in) x 1,000
HSE 180 LT 690 x 500 x 600 low-temperature filaments –
(27.2 x 19.7 x 23.6)
HSE 180 ST 690 x 500 x 600 same as above –
(27.2 x 19.7 x 23.6)
HSE 180 HT 690 x 500 x 600 high-temperature filaments –
(27.2 x 19.7 x 23.6)
HSE 240 HT 430 x 350 x 375 same as above –
(16.9 x 13.8 x 4.81)
HSE 280i HT 695 x 500 x 600 same as above –
(27.4 x 19.7 x 23.6)
ETEC ETEC, previously Envisiontec, was the first company to commercialize DLP
bottom-projection VPP. ETEC was acquired by Desktop Metal in February
2021 and is operating as a wholly owned subsidiary. In 2021, Desktop
Health was created by Desktop Metal. The Desktop Health-branded
systems are noted with an asterisk (*) in the following table.
ETEC
Dearborn, Michigan
www.envisiontec.com
High-temperature air duct,

courtesy of ETEC

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
D4K Pro 148 x 83 x 110 photopolymers $11
(5.8 x 3.3 x 4.3)
Vida 145 x 82 x 100 same as above $20
(5.7 x 3.2 x 3.9)
Vida HD 90 x 50 x 100 same as above $27
(3.5 x 2 x 3.9)
Vida UHD 63 x 36 x 100 same as above $50
(2.5 x 1.4 x 3.9)
Envision One 180 x 101 x 100 same as above $18
(7.1 x 4 x 3.9)
Envision One HT 180 x 101 x 175 same as above $55
(7.1 x 4 x 6.9)
Envision One XL 180 x 101 x 330 same as above –
(7.1 x 4 x 13)
Envision One HT 180 x 101 x 330 same as above $65
XL (7.1 x 4 x 13)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
P4K 35 90 x 56 x 180 same as above $125

(3.5 x 2.2 x 7.1)
(6.3 x 3.9 x 7.1)
(7.6 x 4.7 x 7.1)
P4K 90 233 x 141.5 x 180 same as above $125
(9.2 x 5.6 x 7.1)
P4K Flex 249 x 140.3 x 180 same as above $125
(9.9 x 5.5 x 7.1)
Xtreme 8K 450 x 371 x 399 same as above –
(17.7 x 14.6 x 15.7)
Einstein* 190 x 107 x 102 FDA-cleared, dental, –
(7.5 x 4.2 x 4) biocompatible, wax-filled, and
castable photopolymers
Einstein Pro* 180 x 101 x 152 same as above –
(7.1 x 4 x 6)
Einsten Pro XL* 249 x 140 x 165 same as above –
(9.8 x 5.5 x 6.5)
BJT
RAM 1,000 x 1,900 x 1,000 silica sands –
(39.4 x 74.8 x 39.4)
MEX
3D-Bioplotter 260 x 220 x 70 PLGA, PLLA, PCL, ceramics, –
Starter* (10.2 x 8.7 x 2.8) fibrinogen, silicones, titanium,
chitosan, collagen, alginic acid
3D-Bioplotter 200 x 220 x 140 same as above –
Developer* (7.8 x 8.7 x 5.5)
3D-Bioplotter 200 x 220 x 140 same as above –
Manufacturer* (7.8 x 8.7 x 5.5)
* Desktop Health-branded systems
ExOne ExOne manufactures BJT systems for producing parts in sand, ceramic,
composite, and metal. The company was acquired by Desktop Metal in
November 2021.
ExOne
North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
www.exone.com
Metal parts, courtesy of ExOne

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

BJT mm (in) x 1,000
Innovent+ 160 x 65 x 65 stainless steels, tool steels, $200
(6.3 x 2.5 x 2.5) copper, nickel alloys, cobalt
chrome, titanium, aluminum,
ceramics, metal composites,
ceramic-metal composites
X1 25Pro 400 x 250 x 250 same as above $600
(15.7 x 10 x 10)
X1 160Pro 800 x 500 x 400 same as above $900
(31.5 x 19.7 x 15.8)
S-Print 800 x 500 x 400 silica sand, ceramic beads, $700
(31.5 x 19.7 x 15.7) chromite, zircon
S-Max 1,800 x 1,000 x 700 same as above $980
(70.9 x 39.4 x 27.6)
S-Max Pro 1,800 x 1,000 x 700 same as above $1,200
(70.9 x 39.4 x 27.6)
Formlabs Formlabs, originally funded by a Kickstarter campaign, produces desktop

VPP and polymer PBF systems.
Formlabs, Inc.
Somerville, Massachusetts
www.formlabs.com
LED lightbar, courtesy of Holley and Formlabs

VPP mm (in) x 1,000
Form 3 145 x 145 x 185 photopolymer $3.5
(5.7 x 5.7 x 7.3)
Form 3B 145 x 145 x 185 same as above $4
(5.7 x 5.7 x 7.3)
Form 3L 200 x 335 x 300 photopolymer $11
(7.9 x 13.2 x 11.8)
PBF (polymer)
Fuse 1 165 x 165 x 300 PA12, PA11 $18.5
(6.5 x 6.5 x 11.8)
GE Additive GE Additive, which acquired Arcam and Concept Laser in 2016, develops
and sells metal AM systems based on PBF.
General Electric Company

Boston, Massachusetts
First AM system sale: 2001 (Arcam EBM), 2002 (Concept Laser), and 2019
(GE Binder Jet)
www.ge.com/additive

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Metal PBF part, courtesy of GE Additive

Concept Laser 90 x 90 x 80 stainless steel, cobalt-chrome, €163
Mlab (3.5 x 3.5 x 3.2) bronze alloy, precious metals
70 x 70 x 80 same as above
(2.8 x 2.8 x 3.2)
(2 x 2 x 3.2)
Mlab R (3.5 x 3.5 x 3.2) bronze alloy, precious metals,
titanium alloy, aluminum
(2.8 x 2.8 x 3.2)
(2 x 2 x 3.2)
Mlab 200R (3.9 x 3.9 x 3.9) titanium alloy, pure titanium,
aluminum, bronze, precious
metals
(3.5 x 3.5 x 3.2)
(2.8 x 2.8 x 3.2)
(2 x 2 x 3.2)
Concept Laser 250 x 250 x 350 stainless steel, tool steels, €730
M2 Series 5 (9.8 x 9.8 x 13.8) cobalt-chrome, nickel alloys,
aluminum, titanium,
precipitation-hardening steel
Concept Laser 800 x 400 x 500 aluminum, titanium, nickel alloy €1,780
X LINE 2000R (31.5 x 15.7 x 19.7)
Concept Laser 500 x 500 x 400 cobalt-chrome, nickel alloys –
M LINE FACTORY (19.7 x 19.7 x 15.7)
Arcam EBM 200 x 200 x 180 titanium, cobalt-chrome, copper €499
Q10plus (7.9 x 7.9 x 7.1)
Arcam EBM 350 dia. x 430 same as above €840
Spectra L (13.8 dia. x 16.9)
Arcam EBM 250 dia. x 430 titanium, titanium aluminide, €942
Spectra H (9.8 dia. x 16.9) nickel alloy, tool steel
HP HP offers its Multi Jet Fusion technology as a platform for prototyping and
series production applications.
HP Inc.
Palo Alto, California
www.hp.com

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Tooling for environmentally friendly

packaging, courtesy of HP

Jet Fusion 4200 380 x 284 x 380 PA, TPA, TPU $268
(15 x 11 x 15)
Jet Fusion 3D 5200 380 x 284 x 380 PA, TPU, PP –
series (15 x 11 x 15)
BJT (metal)
Metal Jet 430 x 320 x 200 17-4 PH and 316L stainless $399
(16.9 x 12.6 x 7.9) steel
Markforged Markforged sells MEX systems for producing composite and metal parts.
Markforged, Inc.
Watertown, Massachusetts
www.markforged.com
Kevlar-reinforced fibers (yellow),

courtesy of Markforged

MEX (variant) mm (in) x 1,000
Onyx One 320 x 132 x 154 carbon-reinforced nylon $5
(12.6 x 5.3 x 6.0)
Onyx Pro 320 x 132 x 154 carbon-reinforced nylon, $10
(12.6 x 5.3 x 6.0) fiberglass
Mark Two 320 x 132 x 154 carbon-reinforced nylon, $20
(12.6 x 5.3 x 6.0) fiberglass, carbon fiber, Kevlar,
high-temperature high-strength
fiberglass

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
X3 330 x 270 x 200 carbon-reinforced nylon, flame- $40

(13 x 10.6 x 7.9) retardant nylon, nylon, static-
dissipative carbon-reinforced
nylon
nylon, fiberglass
nylon, fiberglass, Kevlar, high-
temperature high-strength
fiberglass
Metal X 300 x 220 x 180 stainless steel, tool steel, $138+
(11.8 x 8.7 x 7.1) Inconel, copper
Optomec Optomec offers aerosol jetting and laser engineered net shaping (LENS), a
DED process. LENS systems can be in a closed atmosphere (CA) or open
atmosphere (OA) with hybrid capabilities.
Optomec, Inc.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
www.optomec.com
Metal housing, courtesy of Optomec

DED mm (in) x 1,000
LENS Print Engine integrates with a titanium alloys, tool steel, $129
CNC machine tool stainless steel alloys, Inconel
or robotics system alloys, Hastelloy X, copper
alloys, aluminum alloys, wear-
resistant alloys, Stellite 21
LENS CS 250 OA 150 x 150 x 150 same as above (note: OA $355
(5.9 x 5.9 x 5.9) configurations cannot process
reactive metals)
LENS CS 600 CA 600 x 400 x 400 same as above $655
(23.6 x 15.7 x 15.7)
LENS CS 800 CA 800 x 600 x 600 same as above $795
(31.5 x 23.6 x 23.6)
LENS CS 1500 CA 900 x 1,500 x 500 same as above $1,795
(35.4 x 59.1 x 19.7)
LENS MTS 500 350 x 325 x 500 same as above $555
Hybrid CA (13.8 x 12.8 x 19.7)
LENS MTS 500 OA 500 x 325 x 500 same as above $355
(19.7 x 12.8 x 19.7)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Hybrid OA (13.8 x 12.8 x 19.7)
LENS MTS 860 OA 860 x 600 x 610 same as above $495
(33.9 x 23.6 x 24.0)
Hybrid OA (23.5 x 23.6 x 24.0)
HC-205 5-axis OA 356 x 356 x 356 same as above $680
(14 x 14 x 14)
HC 244 4-axis OA 762 x 457 x 508 same as above $870
(30 x 18 x 20)
HC 245 5-axis OA 762 x 457 x 508 same as above $920
(30 x 18 x 20)
MJT (variant)
Aerosol Jet integrates with organic, inorganic, and $138
Print Engine production nanoparticle materials,
automation platform electronic metal conductors,
insulators, adhesives, silver,
copper, gold, platinum,
polymers, biomaterials
Aerosol Jet HD 315 x 425 x 30 same as above $295
(12.4 x 16.7 x 1.2)
Aerosol Jet Flex 350 x 250 x 200 same as above $395
(13.8 x 9.8 x 1.2)
Aerosol Jet 5X 200 x 300 x 200 same as above $485
(7.9 x 11.8 x 7.9)
Manufacturer, The following table shows the AM process and material families employed
by industrial system manufacturers listed previously. The companies are
process, and presented alphabetically.
material matrix
The abbreviations for the material families are:
T = thermoplastic C = ceramic
P = photopolymer S = sand
M = metal B = biomaterials
X = composite Z = other
MEX MJT BJT VPP SHL PBF DED

3D Systems PZ X P MTX
Additive Industries M
AddUp M M
Admatec CM
Arburg T1
Aspect TX
BeAM M
BigRep TX
BLT M M
Carbon P
Cincinnati TXZ
Desktop Metal TMX M
Digital Metal M
DMG Mori M M
DWS P
EOS MT

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
MEX MJT BJT VPP SHL PBF DED

Eplus 3D P MST
Essentium TX
ETEC BTC S P
ExOne MSC
Farsoon MT
Formlabs P T
GE Additive M M
HP M T
Lithoz CMBP
Markforged TXM
Mimaki T P
Optomec Z2 M
Prodways PXC TX
Renishaw M
Sinterit TX
Sisma P M
SLM Solutions M
Stratasys TX PB T P T
Trumpf M M
UnionTech P
Voxeljet STC T
XJet CM
XYZprinting TX X P T
ZRapid PC MTCX
Footnotes:
1 Arburg Freeformer deposits thermoplastics in droplets, rather than extruding them
2 Optomec aerosol jet systems deposit a range of materials by jetting an aerosol
propelled by an inert carrier gas
Additional system The following table lists 299 system manufacturers from around the world.
These companies are in addition to those presented on the previous pages.
manufacturers As of March 2021, most were selling AM systems. Wohlers Associates
constantly monitors new system developments in the market and covers
them in detail as they gain traction commercially.
Companies without an asterisk (*) sell only industrial AM systems. Those

with one asterisk sell both industrial and desktop systems. Those with two
asterisks sell desktop systems only. The following provides abbreviations
for AM processes and materials.
AM Process Materials
MEX = material extrusion T = thermoplastic
MJT = material jetting P = photopolymer
BJT = binder jetting M = metal
SHL = sheet lamination X = composite
VPP = vat photopolymerization C = ceramic
PBF = powder bed fusion S = sand
DED = directed energy deposition B = biomaterials
Z = other

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Company Headquarters Website Process Materials

2oneLab Dieburg, Germany www.2onelab.com PBF M
3D MicroPrint Chemnitz, Germany www.3dmicroprint.com PBF M
3D Micromac Chemnitz, Germany www.3d-micromac.com PBF M
3D Platform Roscoe, Illinois, U.S. www.3dplatform.com MEX TX
3D Printed MicroTEC Duisburg, Germany www.microtec-d.com VPP P
3D4Mec Sasso Marconi, Italy www.3d4steel.com PBF M
3DCeram Sinto Limoges, France www.3dceram.com/en VPP C
3DGence* Przyszowice, Poland www.3dgence.com MEX T
3D-Mectronic Hof, Germany www.3d-mectronic.com PBF TMC
3Dware Mumbai, India www.amprototyping.com VPP P
3DXTech Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S. www.3dxtech.com MEX TX
3ntr* Oleggio, Italy www.3ntr.net MEX TX
Ackuretta* Taipei, Taiwan www.ackuretta.com VPP P
Aconity3D Herzogenrath, Germany www.aconity3d.com PBF, DED M
Addere Waukesha, Wisconsin, U.S. www.addere.com DED M
AddiFab Taastrup, Denmark www.addifab.com VPP P
Addilan Durango, Spain www.addilan.com DED M
Additive Laser Technology Dnipro, Ukraine www.alt-print.com PBF M
Aditiv Solutions Pretoria, South Africa www.aditiv.co.za PBF M
Advanced Solutions Louiseville, Kentucky, U.S. www.advancedsolutions.com MEX B
AIM3D Rostock, Germany www.aim3d.de MEX TMX
Airwolf 3D* Fountain Valley, California, U.S. www.airwolf3d.com MEX TX
Alkimat São José, Brazil www.alkimat.com.br PBF TMC
Allevi Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. www.allevi3d.com MEX B
Alpha Laser Puchheim, Germany www.alphalaser.de DED M
Amace Bengalaru, India www.am-ace.com PBF M
AMCM Starnberg, Germany www.amcm.com PBF MT
AML3D Tranmere, Australia www.aml3d.com DED M
AmPro Innovations Notting Hill, Australia www.amproinnovations.com PBF M
Anet** Shenzhen, China www.anet3d.com MEX TX
Anisoprint Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg www.anisoprint.com MEX TX
Anycubic* Shenzen, China www.anycubic.com MEX, VPP TP
AON 3D (Korea) Gunpo-si, Korea www.aoninni.com VPP C
AON3D Montreal, Canada www.aon3d.com MEX TX
Apis Cor Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. www.apis-cor.com MEX Z
Apium* Karlsruhe, Germany www.apiumtec.com MEX TX
APS Tech Solutions Höchst, Austria www.aps-techsolutions.com MEX T
Asiga Alexandria, Australia www.asiga.com VPP P
ATMAT Kraków, Poland www.atmat.pl MEX TX
Atomstack* Shenzen, China www.atomstack3d.com MEX T
Atum 3D Gouda, Netherlands www.atum3d.com VPP P
Aurora Labs Canning Vale, Australia www.auroralabs3d.com PBF M
Azul3D Skokie, Illinois, U.S. www.azul3d.com VPP P
B9Creations Rapid City, South Dakota, U.S. www.b9c.com VPP P
BCN3D* Barcelona, Spain www.bcn3d.com MEX TXM
Beeverycreative** Ilhavo, Portugal www.beeverycreative.com MEX T
Bego* Bremen, Germany www.bego.com VPP PC
Blackbelt Belfeld, Netherlands www.blackbelt-3d.com MEX T
Boston Micro Fabrication Maynard, Massachusetts, U.S. www.bmftec.com VPP PC
Builder Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands www.builder3dprinters.com MEX T
ByFlow** Eindhoven, Netherlands www.3dbyflow.com MEX Z
Carima* Seoul, South Korea www.carima.com VPP PC
CEAD Delft, Netherlands www.cead-am.com MEX TX
CEL** Bristol, UK www.cel-robox.com MEX TX
Chamlion Laser Tech. Nanjing, China www.chamlion.com PBF M
Chiron Group Tuttlingen, Germany www.chiron-group.com DED M
Choc Edge** Exeter, UK www.chocedge.com MEX Z
CMET Kanagawa, Japan www.cmet.co.jp VPP, BJT PS
CNC Barcenas Valdepenas, Spain www.discovery3dprinter.com MEX TX
Cobod Copenhagen, Denmark www.cobod.com MEX Z
Coin Robotics Shanghai, China www.coinrobotics.com MEX T
Colido 3D* Cuart de les Valls, Spain www.colido.com MEX TX
Colossus Houthalen-Helchteren, Belgium www.colossusprinters.com MEX TX
Coobx Balzers, Lichtenstein www.coobx.com VPP P
Cosine Additive Houston, Texas, U.S. www.cosineadditive.com MEX TX
CR3D Cham, Germany www.cr3d.de MEX T
Craftbot** Budapest, Hungary www.craftbot.com MEX TX
Creality** Shenzen, China www.creality.com MEX, VPP TPX
Creasee* Dongguan City, China www.en.creasee.com MEX T
Cubicon* Seongnam-si, South Korea www.3dcubicon.com MEX, VPP TP
Cubicure Vienna, Austria www.cubicure.com VPP P

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

CyBe Construction Oss, Netherlands www.cybe.eu MEX Z
Dagoma** Roubaix, France www.dagoma3d.com MEX TX
Dazzle Shenzen, China www.dazz-3d.com VPP P
Dedibot* Hangzhou, China www.dedibot.com MEX, PBF, VPP TPMX
Deltamaker** Orlando, Florida, U.S. www.deltamaker.com MEX TX
Deltaprintr** Staten Island, New York, U.S. www.deltaprintr.com MEX TX
Dental Milestones Guaranteed Hamburg, Germany www.dmg-dental.com VPP P
Dentas Maribor, Slovenia www.dentas.systems PBF M
Diabase Longmont, Colorado, U.S. www.diabasepe.com MEX TX
D-MEC Tokyo, Japan www.d-mec.co.jp VPP P
DP Polar Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany www.dppolar.de MJT P
Dynamical3D Cuarte de Huerva, Spain www.dynamicaltools.com MEX TX
EasyMFG Wuhan City, China www.easy3dmade.com BJT MS
Elegoo** Shenzhen, China www.elegoo.com VPP P
Epax 3D** Morrisville, North Carolina, U.S. www.epax3d.com VPP P
Ermaksan Bursa, Turkey www.ermaksan.com.tr PBF M
Evolve Additive Minnetonka, Minnesota, U.S. www.evolveadditive.com SHL T
EVO-tech Schörfling am Attersee, Austria www.evo-tech.eu MEX TX
Exaddon Glattbrugg, Switzerland www.exaddon.com VPP M
Fabrisonic Columbus, Ohio, U.S. www.fabrisonic.com SHL M
FAME 3D (Lulzbot)* Fargo, North Dakota, U.S. www.lulzbot.com MEX TX
FelixPrinters* IJsselstein, Netherlands www.felixprinters.com MEX TB
Femtoprint Muzzano, Switzerland www.femtoprint.ch VPP Z
Flashforge* Zhejiang, China www.flashforge.com MEX, VPP, MJT TPX
FlensTech* Flensburg, Germany www.flenstech.de MEX, VPP TPX
Fleximatter Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut, Israel www.fleximatter.com MEX TX
Fluicell Mölndal, Sweden www.fluicell.com MEX B
Flux* Taipei, Taiwan www.flux3dp.com MEX T
Fochif Shanghai, China www.fochif.com MEX, VPP PBCZ
Fonon Orlando, Florida, U.S. www.fonon.us PBF M
Formalloy Spring Valley, California, U.S. www.formalloy.com DED M
Fortify Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. www.3dfortify.com VPP PX
Fouche 3D Printing Kempton Park, South Africa www.fouche3dprinting.com MEX TCZ
Freemelt Mölndal, Sweden www.freemelt.com PBF M
Fused Form Bogotá, Columbia www.fusedformcorp.com MEX T
Fusion3 Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S. www.fusion3design.com MEX T
Geeetech* Shenzen, China www.geeetech.com MEX, VPP TP
Genera Vienna, Austria www.genera3d.com VPP P
Gerfertec Berlin, Germany www.gefertec.de DED M
Gewo Feinmechanik Wörth/Hörlkofen, Germany www.gewo.net MEX TX
Gimax3D Toscana, Italy www.gimax3d.com MEX TX
Gizmo 3D Brisbane, Australia www.gizmo3dprinters.com.au VPP P
Goofoo* Xiamen, China www.goofoo3d.com MEX, VPP TPX
Hage3D Obdach, Austria www.hage3d.com MEX TCMX
Hangbang 3D (HBD) Zhongshan, China www.hb3dp.com PBF M
Hengtong Shaanxi, China www.hengtong3d.co PBF, VPP, MEX MTPC
HeyGears Guangzhou, China www.heygears.com VPP P
Huake 3D Wuhan, China www.huake3d.com/en PBF TMS
Hybrid Manufacturing Tech. McKinney, Texas, U.S. www.hybridmanutech.com DED M
Hyrel 3D Norcross, Georgia, U.S. www.hyrel3d.com MEX TZ
IBridger Shanghai, China www.ibridger.com MEX T
IC3D Columbus, Ohio, U.S. www.ic3dprinters.com MEX T
IEMAI Dongguan, China www.iemai3d.com MEX T
iFactory3D* Düsseldorf, Germany www.ifactory3d.com MEX T
Impact Innovations Haun, Germany www.impact-innovations.com DED M
Impossible Objects Northbrook, Illinois, U.S. www.impossible-objects.com SHL X
Incus Vienna, Austria www.incus3d.com VPP M
Ingersoll Machine Tools Rockford, Illinois, U.S. en.machinetools.camozzi.com MEX TCX
InnovatiQ Feldkirchen, Germany www.innovatiq.com/en MEX TZ
InssTek Daejeon, South Korea www.insstek.com DED M
Intamsys Shanghai, China www.intamsys.com MEX TX
Intech Bangalore, India www.intechadditive.com PBF M
IO Tech Modi'in, Israel www.i-o-tech.com MJT M
Jiangsu Ouring* Jiangsu, China www.ouring.com.cn MEX T
Juggerbot 3D Youngstown, Ohio, U.S. www.juggerbot3d.com MEX TX
Julien Le Creusot, France www.juliensa.com MEX T
Keyence Osaka, Japan www.keyence.co.jp MJT P
Kings 3D Printing Shenzhen, China www.kings3dprinter.com VPP, PBF PM
Klema Kraków, Poland www.klema.eu MEX T
Kora* Leeds, UK www.kora3d.com MEX T
Kulzer Hanau, Germany www.kulzer.com VPP P

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Kumovis Munich, Germany www.kumovis.com MEX TX
Kurtz Ersa Aachen, Germany www.kurtzersa.com PBF M
Laser Photonics Orlando, Florida, U.S. www.laserphotonics.com PBF M
Laseradd Guangzhou, China www.laseradd.com PBF, DED MTC
Leapfrog* Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands www.lpfrg.com MEX TX
Long Yuan Beijing, China www.lyafs.com.cn PBF, MJT, BJT TMS
Longer 3D** Shenzhen, China www.longer3d.com MEX, VPP TPX
Loop 3D Ankara, Turkey www.loop3dprinter.com MEX TCX
Lugo Labs* Busan, South Korea www.lugolabs.xyz MEX TX
Lumi Industries** Montebelluna, Italy www.lumindustries.com VPP, MEX TP
Lunovu Herzogenrath, Germany www.lunovu.com DED M
LuxCreo Belmont, California, U.S. www.luxcreo.com VPP P
Luxexcel Eindhoven, Netherlands www.luxexcel.com VPP PZ
Lynxter Bayonne, France www.lynxter.fr MEX T
M3D** Fulton, Maryland, U.S. www.printm3d.com MEX TX
Magforms Zhongshan City, China www.magforms.com VPP P
MagnaRecta* Tokyo, Japan www.magnarecta.com MEX TXZ
MakerBot Industries* Brooklyn, New York, U.S. www.makerbot.com MEX TX
Makergear* Beachwood, Ohio, U.S. www.makergear.com MEX TX
MakeX* Zhejiang, China www.makex.com VPP, MEX PTX
Mark One* Mercato Saraceno, Italy www.3dmarkone.com MEX TX
Mass Portal Riga, Latvia www.massportal.com MEX TX
Massivit Lod, Israel www.massivit3D.com MEX P
Matsuura Fukui, Japan www.lumex-matsuura.com PBF M
Maxrotec Daegu, South Korea www.maxrotec.com DED M
Mazak Oguchi, Japan www.mazak.co.jp DED M
MeccatroniCore (MTC)* Trento, Italy www.mtc3d.com MEX T
Meltio Linares, Spain www.meltio3d.com DED, MEX M
MicroJet Hsinchu City, Taiwan www.microjet.com.tw BJT CX
Microlay Madrid, Spain www.microlay.com VPP P
Microlight La Tronche, France www.microlight.fr VPP P
MiiCraft Hsinchu, Taiwan www.miicraft.com VPP P
MilleBot Jacksonville, Florida, US www.millebot.com MEX TZMX
MiniFactory Seinäjoki, Finland www.minifactory.fi MEX TX
Modix Ramat Gan, Israel www.modix3d.com MEX TX
Monoprice** Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S. www.monoprice.com MEX TX
Mosaic* Toronto, Canada www.mosaicmfg.com MEX T
Multec Illmensee, Germany www.multec.de MEX TMX
Multiphoton Optics Würzburg, Germany www.multiphoton.net VPP P
Mutoh* Tokyo, Japan www.mutoh.co.jp MEX, VPP TPX
MX3D Amsterdam, Netherlands www.mx3d.com DED M
Nano Dimension Ness Ziona, Israel www.nano-di.com MJT MP
Nanogrande Montreal, Canada www.nanogrande.com PBF M
NanoScribe Karlsruhe, Germany www.nanoscribe.de VPP P
Nexa3D Ventura, California, U.S. www.nexa3d.com VPP, PBF PT
NIIAM Shaanxi, China www.niiam.com PBF M
Noura Isfahan, Iran www.noura3dp.com PBF M
Novafab Istanbul, Turkey www.novafab.com VPP P
nScrypt Orlando, Florida, U.S. www.nscrypt.com MEX, MJT MPB
Omni3D Poznan, Poland www.omni3d.com MEX TX
Omnitek Sao Paulo, Brazil www.omnitek.com.br PBF M
Open Additive Beavercreek, Ohio, U.S. www.openadditive.com PBF M
Opiliones* Winterswijk, Netherlands www.opiliones.nl MEX TX
Orbital Composites San Jose, California, U.S. www.orbitalcomposites.com MEX X
Orion Berlin, Germany www.orion-am.com MEX T
Peopoly** Hong Kong, China www.peopoly.net VPP P
Photocentric Peterborough, UK www.photocentricgroup.com VPP P
Phrozen** Hsinchu City, Taiwan www.phrozen3d.com VPP P
Pollen Paris, France www.pollen.am MEX TM
Powerbelt 3D** Dayton, Ohio, U.S. www.powerbelt3d.com MEX TX
Precitec Gaggenau, Germany www.precitec.de DED M
Prenta Oy Kangasala, Finland www.prenta.fi MEX T
Prima Additive Turin, Italy www.primaadditive.com PBF, DED M
Prismlab Shanghai, China www.prismlab.com VPP P
ProtoFab Fujian, China www.3dprotofab.com VPP, PBF PTM
Prusa** Prague, Czech Republic www.prusa3d.com MEX, VPP TXP
Pyot Labs* Berlin, Germany www.pyot.de MEX T
QIDI Technology* Ruian City, China www.qd3dprinter.com MEX, VPP TP
Quickbeam Tianjin, China www.qbeam-3d.com PBF M

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Radium Laser Technologies Tianjin, China www.en.lim-laser.com PBF M
Raise3D* Irvine, California, U.S. www.raise3d.com MEX TX
Rapid Shape Heimsheim, Germany www.rapidshape.de VPP P
Rapidia Vancouver, Canada www.rapidia.com MEX M
Raplas Ascot, UK www.raplas.com VPP, BJT PSCT
Ray Gyeonggi-do, Korea www.raymedical.com VPP P
Raycham Nanjing, China www.raycham.com PBF M
Re:3D Houston, Texas, U.S. www.re3d.org MEX TX
Riton Guangzhou, China www.ritonlaser.com PBF, DED M
Robo 3D** San Diego, California, U.S. www.robo3d.com MEX TX
Robot Factory* Venice, Italy www.robotfactory.it MEX, VPP TPX
Roboze Bari, Italy www.roboze.com MEX TX
Rokit Seoul, South Korea www.rokit.co.kr MEX TB
Roland* Shizuoka-ken, Japan www.rolanddg.com VPP P
Romi Santa Bárbara d’Oeste, Brazil www.romi.com DED M
RPM Innovations Rapid City, South Dakota, U.S. www.rpm-innovations.com DED M
RPS Aylesbury, UK www.rps.ltd VPP P
S-Squared 3D Printers* New York, New York, U.S. www.sq3d.com MEX T
Sailong Metal Xi’an, China www.slmetal.com PBF M
Samylabs Bizkaia, Spain www.samylabs.com PBF M
SBI Ziersdorf, Austria www.sbi.at DED M
Sciaky Chicago, Illinois, U.S. www.sciaky.com DED M
SeeMeCNC** Ligonier, Indiana, U.S. www.seemecnc.com MEX TX
Shanghai Digital Manufacturing Shanghai, China www.digitalmanu.net VPP, MEX PT
Sharebot* Nibionno, Italy www.sharebot.it PBF, VPP, MEX TPMX
Shining 3D* Hangzhou, China www.shining3d.com PBF, VPP PM
Sindoh* Seoul, South Korea www.3dprinter.sindoh.com MEX, VPP, PBF TPX
Sintratec Brugg, Switzerland www.sintratec.com PBF T
Slant 3D* Nampa, Idaho, U.S. www.slant3d.com MEX T
Smart International (Kodak)* Rochester, New York, U.S. www.smart3d.tech MEX T
Snapmaker* Shenzen, China www.snapmaker.com MEX T
Sodick Schaumburg, Illinois, U.S. www.sodick.com PBF M
Solid Freeform Systems Ulsan, South Korea www.sfsystems.kr PBF, BJT MS
Solidscape Merrimack, New Hampshire, U.S. www.solid-scape.com MJT PZ
SondaSys Ogrodzieniec, Poland www.sondasys.com PBF T
SPEE3D Melbourne, Australia www.spee3d.com DED M
Sprintray Los Angeles, California, U.S. www.sprintray.com VPP P
Stacker* Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. www.stacker3d.com MEX TX
Structo Singapore, Singapore www.structo3d.com VPP P
SunP Biotech Cherry Hill, New Jersey, U.S. www.sunpbiotech.com MEX B
Sugino Wixom, Michigan, U.S. www.suginocorp.com DED M
Techgine Shanghai, China www.techgine-3d.com PBF M
Tecnirolo Leiria, Portugal www.tecnirolo.com VPP P
Tethon 3D Omaha, Nebraska, U.S. www.tethon3d.com VPP C
TevoUp** California, U.S. www.tevoup.com MEX TX
Thermwood Dale, Indiana, U.S. www.thermwood.com MEX TX
LiM Laser Technology Tianjin, China www.lim-laser.com PBF M
Tiertime* Beijing, China www.tiertime.com MEX TX
Tinkerine** Delta, Canada www.tinkerine.com MEX TX
Titan Robotics Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S. www.titan3drobotics.com MEX TX
Titomic Notting Hill, Australia www.titomic.com DED M
Tobeca Vendôme, France www.tobeca.fr MEX T
Tongtai Kaohsiung City, Taiwan www.tongtai.com.tw PBF M
TPM3D Shanghai, China www.trumpsystem.com PBF T
Tractus 3D Waardenburg, Netherlands www.tractus3d.com MEX TX
Trend Seoul Seoul, Korea www.trendseoul.com MEX T
Trideo Buenos Aires, Argentina www.trideo3d.com MEX T
Triditive Meres, Spain www.triditive.com MEX TMZX
Trilab Brno, Czechia www.trilab3d.com MEX T
Tritone Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel www.tritoneam.com MJT MC
Two Trees* Shenzen, China www.twotrees3dofficial.com MEX T
Tytus3D Fremont, California, U.S. www.tytus3d.com PBF M
Ubot 3D Kraków, Poland www.ubot3d.com MEX TX
Ultimaker* Utrecht, Netherlands www.ultimaker.com MEX TX
UNIZ* San Diego, California, U.S. www.uniz.com VPP P
Upnano Vienna, Austria www.upnano.at VPP P
Velo3D Campbell, California, U.S. www.velo3d.com PBF M
Volumic Nice, France www.volumic3d.com MEX T
Voxelab* Jinhua City, China www.voxelab3dp.com MEX, VPP TP

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

Voxeltek Budapest, Hungary www.voxeltek.com VPP P
Vshaper Rzeszow, Poland www.vshaper.com MEX T
Vulcantech Hanover, Germany www.vulcan-3d.com PBF M
W2P Vienna, Austria www.way2production.at VPP P
WAAM3D Milton Keynes, UK www.waam3d.com DED M
Walter Feist Systemtechnik Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany www.delta3ddruck.de MEX T
WASP Ravenna, Italy www.wasproject.it MEX TZX
Wayland Additive Huddersfield, UK www.waylandadditive.com PBF M
Weirather Höfen bei Reutte, Austria www.weirather.com PBF T
Wematter Linköping, Sweden www.wematter3d.com PBF T
WiiBoox* Nanjing, China www.wiiboox.com MEX, PBF, VPP TPMXZ
Xact Metal State College, Pennsylvania, U.S. www.xactmetal.com PBF M
XBeam 3D Kiev, Ukraine www.xbeam3d.com DED M
Xerox Norwalk, Connecticut, U.S. www.xerox.com MEX M
Yizumi Alsdorf, Germany www.yizumi-germany.de MEX TX
Zaxe* Istanbul, Turkey www.zaxe.com MEX TX
Zhuhai CTC* Zhuhai, China www.ctcprinter.com PBF, VPP, MEX MTPX
Zortrax* Olsztyn, Poland www.zortrax.com MEX, VPP TPX
ZYYX Lab* Gothenburg, Sweden www.zyyx3dprinter.com MEX TX
Footnotes:
* Company sells both industrial and desktop systems
** Company sells desktop systems only

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Appendices
Appendix A: The following are key terms and abbreviations used in this report. Most
of the terms in this appendix and report conform to the ISO/ASTM 52900
Glossary of terms terminology standard.
3D digitizing Same as 3D scanning.
3D printer* Machine used for 3D printing.
3D printing* Fabrication of objects through the deposition

of a material using a print head, nozzle, or
another printer technology. Term often used
in a non-technical context synonymously
with additive manufacturing; until present
times, this term has in particular been
associated with machines that are low end in
price and/or overall capability.
3D scanning* Method of acquiring the shape and size of an

object as a 3D representation by recording x,
y, z coordinates on the object’s surface and
through software converting the collection of
points into digital data.
3MF Additive manufacturing file format used to

describe color, textures, materials, and other
characteristics of a 3D model. Ongoing
development of the file format is led by the
3MF Consortium, which was initiated by
Microsoft and other companies in 2015.
ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; a

thermoplastic polymer with high-impact
resistance and toughness.
additive layer manufacturing Same as additive manufacturing.
additive manufacturing* Process of joining materials to make parts

from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer,
as opposed to subtractive manufacturing and
formative manufacturing methodologies;
historical terms are additive fabrication,
additive processes, additive techniques,
additive layer manufacturing, layer
manufacturing, solid freeform fabrication,
and freeform fabrication.
additive process Same as additive manufacturing.
additive system* Additive manufacturing system, additive

manufacturing equipment, machine and
auxiliary equipment used for additive
manufacturing.
AM Additive manufacturing.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
AMF* Additive Manufacturing File format for

communicating additive manufacturing
model data including a description of the 3D
surface geometry with native support for
color, materials, lattices, textures,
constellations, and metadata.
as built* The state of parts made by an additive

process before any post-processing, besides,
if necessary, the removal from a build
platform as well as the removal of support
and/or unprocessed feedstock.
ASTM International International standards organization,

formerly known as American Society for
Testing and Materials.
B2B Business to business.
B2C Business to consumer.
batch* Defined quantity of feedstock with uniform

properties and composition.
binder jetting* Additive manufacturing process in which a

liquid bonding agent is selectively deposited
to join powder materials.
BJT Binder jetting.
bounding box* Orthogonally oriented minimum perimeter

cuboid that can span the maximum extents of
the points on the surface of a part.
build chamber* Enclosed location within the additive

manufacturing system where the parts are
fabricated.
build envelope* Largest external dimensions of the x-, y-, and

z-axes within the build space where parts can
be fabricated.
build space* Location where it is possible for parts to be

fabricated, typically within the build chamber
or on a build platform.
build volume* Total usable volume available in the machine

for building parts.
CAD Computer-aided design; the use of computers

for the design of real or virtual objects.
CAE Computer-aided engineering; CAE software

offers capabilities for engineering simulation
and analysis, such as determining a part’s
strength or heat-transfer capacity.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
CAM Computer-aided manufacturing; typically

refers to systems that use surface data to
drive CNC machines, such as digitally driven
mills and lathes, to produce parts, molds, and
dies.
ceramic Inorganic and non-metallic crystalline

material with high compression strength and
low shear and tensile strength.
cermet Material made from ceramic and metal with

heat-resistance properties.
CIM Ceramic injection molding.
CNC Computer numerical control; computer-

controlled machines include mills, lathes, and
flame cutters.
CT Computed tomography; CT scanning is a

method of capturing the internal and external
structure of an object using ionizing
radiation. A CT scan creates a series of two-
dimensional gray-scale images that can be
used to construct a 3D model.
cure* Change the physical properties of a material

by means of a chemical reaction.
DED Directed energy deposition.
DfAM Design for additive manufacturing.
digital light processing A display device that creates an image using

an array of micromirrors; each mirror
represents one or more pixels in the
projected image.
direct metal deposition A trade name used by DM3D for the

company’s directed energy deposition
technology.
direct metal laser sintering A trade name used by EOS for the company’s
metal powder bed fusion technology.
directed energy deposition* Additive manufacturing process in which

focused thermal energy is used to fuse
materials by melting as they are being
deposited. “Focused thermal energy" means
that an energy source (e.g., laser, electron
beam, or plasma arc) is focused to melt the
materials being deposited.
DLP Digital light processing, a technology

developed by Texas Instruments.
DMD Direct metal deposition.
DMLS Direct metal laser sintering.
EBM Electron beam melting.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
EDM Electrical discharge machining; a method of

machining that removes material with a
series of electrical current discharges
between a tool electrode and a workpiece.
elastomer Amorphous polymers with elasticity and low

stiffness.
electron beam melting A trade name used by GE Additive for Arcam

electron-beam-based metal powder bed
fusion technology.
extrusion nozzle* Component with an orifice through which

feedstock is extruded.
facet* Three- or four-sided polygon that represents

an element of a 3D polygonal mesh surface or
model. Triangular facets are used in the file
formats most significant to AM: AMF and STL
files; however, AMF files permits a triangular
facet to be curved.
FDM Fused deposition modeling.
feedstock* Bulk raw material supplied to the additive

manufacturing building process.
fully dense* State in which the material of a fabricated

part is without significant content of voids.
fused deposition modeling A trade name used by Stratasys for the

company’s material extrusion technology.
fusion* Act of uniting two or more units of material

into a single unit of material.
HIP Hot isostatic pressing.
hot isostatic pressing Uses heat and isostatic pressure to reduce or

eliminate the porosity in metals and increase
the density of ceramics.
hybrid manufacturing system Manufacturing system that uses both additive

and subtractive technologies.
ISO International Standards Organization; more

widely known as the International
Organization for Standardization.
laser sintering* Powder bed fusion process used to produce

objects from powdered materials using one
or more lasers to selectively fuse or melt the
particles at the surface, layer upon layer, in
an enclosed chamber.
layer additive manufacturing Same as additive manufacturing.
LS Laser sintering.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
machine coordinate system* Three-dimensional coordinate system

defined by a fixed point on the build
platform; defined by the machine
manufacturer.
maker A member of a technology-based do-it-

yourself (DIY) community.
material extrusion* Additive manufacturing process in which

material is selectively dispensed through a
nozzle or orifice.
material jetting* Additive manufacturing process in which

droplets of feedstock material are selectively
deposited. Example materials include
photopolymer and wax.
MCAD Mechanical computer-aided design; the use

of CAD to design mechanical parts and
assemblies.
MEMS Microelectromechanical systems.
metrology Science of measurement.
MEX Material extrusion.
MIM Metal injection molding.
MJF Multi Jet Fusion technology from HP.
MJT Material jetting.
MRI Magnetic resonance imaging; alternative to

CT scanning that offers better soft-tissue
contrast; MRI does not use ionizing radiation.
multi-step process* Additive manufacturing process in which

parts are fabricated in two or more
operations; the first step typically provides
the basic geometric shape, and the following
consolidates the part to the fundamental
properties of the intended material.
near net shape* Condition where the parts require little post-
processing to meet dimensional tolerance.
nesting* Situation when parts are made in one build

cycle and are located such that their
bounding boxes, arbitrarily oriented or
otherwise, overlap.
NSF National Science Foundation; U.S.

government funding agency.
OEM Original equipment manufacturer.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
PA Polyamide; a family of thermoplastic

polymers often used for powder bed fusion
systems.
PAEK Polyaryletherketone; a high-melting-

temperature thermoplastic polymer; a
member of the polyaryletherketone family.
PBF Powder bed fusion.
PBT Polybutylene terephthalate; a strong

thermoplastic polymer used as an insulator
and is resistant to solvents.
PC Polycarbonate; a family of thermoplastic

polymers that are highly formable with high-
impact resistance.
PCL Polycaprolactone; biodegradable polyester

used to produce specialty polyurethanes.
PEEK Polyether ether ketone; a high-melting-

PEI Polyethylenimine; a polymer used for

adhesives, detergents, and cosmetics.
PEKK Polyetherketoneketone; a high-melting-

PHA Polyhydroxyalkanoate; polyesters produced

naturally from bacterial fermentation of
lipids or sugar; biodegradable and used to
produce bioplastics.
photopolymer A thermoset polymer that changes properties

when exposed to ultraviolet or visible light;
typically, a photopolymer changes from
liquid to solid during photopolymerization.
PIM Plastic injection molding; popular method of

molding parts from thermoplastic materials
such as polypropylene, polyamide (nylon),
polycarbonate, ABS, polyethylene, and
polystyrene.
PLA Polylactic acid; a thermoplastic polymer that

is biodegradable and often derived from
renewable sources such as corn starch, sugar
cane, or tapioca roots.
PLLA Poly-L-lactic acid (see PLA).
PMMA Polymethyl methacrylate; a thermoplastic

polymer that is used in Voxeljet’s binder
jetting process.
polymer Material made up of large molecules that

consist of repeating molecular units.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
porosity* Presence of small voids in a part, making it

less than fully dense; typically quantified as a
ratio and expressed as a percentage.
post-processing* One or more process steps taken after the

completion of an additive manufacturing
build cycle to achieve the desired properties
in the final product.
powder bed fusion* Additive manufacturing process in which

thermal energy selectively fuses regions of a
powder bed.
PP Polypropylene; a thermoplastic polymer used

in a range of applications.
PPS Polyphenylene sulfide; an organic polymer

often used for making filter fabric.
process parameters* Operating parameters and system settings

used during a build cycle.
production run* All parts produced in one build cycle or

sequential series of build cycles using the
same feedstock batch and process conditions.
prototype* Physical representation of all or a component

of a product that, although limited in some
way, can be used for analysis, design, and
evaluation.
prototype tooling* Molds, dies, and other devices used for

prototyping purposes; sometimes referred to
as bridge tooling or soft tooling.
rapid prototyping* Application of additive manufacturing

intended for reducing the time needed for
producing prototypes. Historically, rapid
prototyping (RP) was the first commercially
significant application for additive
manufacturing and has therefore been
commonly used as a general term for this
type of technology.
rapid tooling* Application of additive manufacturing

intended for the production of tools or
tooling components with reduced lead times
as compared to conventional tooling. Rapid
tooling may be produced directly by the
additive manufacturing process or indirectly
by producing patterns that are in turn used in
a secondary process to produce the actual
tools.
resolution* Dimensions of the smallest part feature that

can be controlled when built.
reverse engineering A method of creating a digital representation

from a physical object to define its shape,
dimensions, and internal and external
features.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
selective laser melting A generic name for metal powder bed fusion.
selective laser sintering A trade name used by 3D Systems for the

company’s polymer powder bed fusion
technology.
SFF Solid freeform fabrication; another name for

additive manufacturing.
sheet lamination* Additive manufacturing process in which

sheets of material are bonded to form a part.
SHL Sheet lamination.
single-step process* Additive manufacturing process in which

parts are fabricated in a single operation
where both geometric shape and material
properties are achieved simultaneously.
SLA Stereolithography apparatus.
SLM Selective laser melting.
SLS Selective laser sintering.
SMEs Small- and medium-sized enterprises.
solid model 3D CAD representation somewhat analogous

to using material, such as wood or plastic, to
create a shape. Many solid-modeling software
products use geometric primitives, such as
cylinders and spheres, and features such as
holes and slots, to construct 3D shapes. Solid
models are preferred over surface models for
additive manufacturing because they define a
closed, “watertight” volume—a requirement
of most additive manufacturing systems.
STEAM Science, technology, engineering, art, and

mathematics.
STEM Science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics; often used in association with
education policy and curriculum
development in schools to help improve
competitiveness.
stereolithography See vat photopolymerization.
STL File format for 3D model data used by

machines to build physical parts. STL is the
de facto standard interface for additive
manufacturing systems. STL originated from
the term stereolithography. The STL format
uses triangular facets to approximate the
shape of an object, listing the vertices,
ordered by the right-hand rule, and unit
normals of the triangles, and excludes CAD
model attributes.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
support* Structure separate from the part geometry

that is created to provide a base and anchor
for the part during the building process.
surface model* Mathematical or digital representation of an

object as a set of planar or curved surfaces, or
both, that can, but not necessarily have to
represent a closed volume.
thermoplastic A polymer that can be repeatedly melted,

cooled, and solidified.
thermoset A polymer that is permanently cured once

polymerized.
tool, tooling Mold, die, or another device used in various

manufacturing processes such as plastic
injection molding, thermoforming, blow
molding, die casting, sheet metal stamping,
hydroforming, forging, composite layup,
machining, and assembly fixtures.
topological optimization Same as topology optimization.
topology optimization Use of mathematics to optimize the strength-

to-weight ratio of a design. The approach
minimizes the use for a given set of load and
constraint conditions.
TPE Thermoplastic elastomer; polymer that

exhibits exceptional elastomeric properties.
TPU Thermoplastic polyurethane; a class of

polyurethane plastics (thermoplastic
elastomers) that share properties of
elasticity, transparency, and resistance to oil
and grease.
triangulation Method of inferring the location of a point on

a surface by projecting light onto the surface
and observing that light from a different
angle or orientation.
vat photopolymerization* Additive manufacturing process in which

liquid photopolymer in a vat is selectively
cured by light-activated polymerization.
virgin* Condition of feedstock from a single

manufacturing lot before being applied to the
additive manufacturing process.
voxel Volume element; objects and three-

dimensional datasets can be divided into an
array of discrete elements, called voxels, on a
regular grid in three-dimensional space.
VPP Vat photopolymerization.
* denotes ISO/ASTM 52900 standard definition

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Appendix B: 1988–2006 Unit Sales
Appendix B: The following table shows the number of industrial machines sold from
the inception of AM through 2006. The years 2007–2021 are found in
1988–2006 unit sales Part 3 of this report. Most of the numbers in this table were generously
provided by the system manufacturers. The table includes all industrial
AM systems (those that sell for $5,000 or more). Some of the Japanese
figures are estimates of systems sold from April through March, which is
the fiscal year of most Japanese companies.
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
United States
Stratasys, Inc. - - - 6 9 22 55 121 257 260 262 293 297 277 463 691 1,0501 1,2271 1,7231
3D Systems 32 94 105 44 58 60 94 1302 1752 2782 2242 303 387 415 2973 2024 4284 3704 2384
Z Corp. - - - - - - - - 1 7 48 105 170 188 210 349 461 687 777
Solidscape - - - - - - 22 41 65 152 110 129 127 103 140 128 170 297 339
DTM - - - - 9 19 23 36 51 42 65 73 77 395 - - - - -
Helisys - - - - 5 19 57 70 63 73 50 36 4 - - - - - -
ExOne - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 10 21 29 40 52
Optomec10 - - - - - - - - - - 3 4 5 1 2 3 11 17 18
Schroff - - - - - - - - 20 64 44 31 8 5 - - - - -
Sanders Design Int. - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 15 20 8 - -
POM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 3 3 2
Solidica - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 0 1 3 4 0
Asiga - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cubic Technologies - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fabrisonic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sciaky - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Markforged - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RPM Innovations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rise - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cosine Additive - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Solick - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Titan Robotics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Viridis3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vader Systems - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Canada
Accufusion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brazil
Alkimat - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Japan6
CMET7 - - - - 1 1 8 10 18 15 13 12 13 30 28 30 30 30 30
D-MEC - 2 4 10 7 3 3 3 10 20 23 21 22 27 36 29 35 24 154
Autostrade - - - - - - - - - - 16 37 36 26 29 29 31 25 20
Kira - - - - - - 5 22 12 20 18 24 23 13 11 16 12 15 174
Denken - - - - - 3 14 18 14 21 17 9 11 10 14 24 6 13 114
NTT Data CMET7 2 8 4 14 7 10 9 18 20 22 24 24 24 - - - - - -
Meiko - - - - - - 6 7 4 1 7 16 21 20 14 21 11 8 74
Unirapid Inc. - - - - - - - 4 4 1 4 4 6 7 7 7 10 7 8
Chubunippon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 5 15 24
Aspect - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6
Roland DG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Keyence - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Matsuura - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
China
Tiertime - - - - - - - - 4 0 6 6 12 18 15 28 30 31 54
Shaanxi Hengtong - - - - - - - - - 3 4 4 5 6 8 12 28 33 40
Wuhan Binhu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18 26 20 12 10
Huake 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EPlus 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Longyuan - - - - - - - - 1 0 2 4 5 8 12 10 11 9 9
4 4
UnionTech - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 7 11 13 11 14
Farsoon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TPM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xery - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bright Laser Tech. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Korea
Carima - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Menix - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 1 2 3 24

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Korea (continued)
InssTek - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rokit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sentrol - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Singapore
Kinergy - - - - - - - 2 2 4 4 3 12 6 9 74 - - -
Structo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Austria
Lithoz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Denmark
Blueprinter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
England
MTT Technologies - - - - - - 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 5 4 7
Renishaw - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
France
4
Phenix Systems - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 3 7 8
BeAM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Prodways - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3DCeram Sinto - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Germany
4
Envisiontec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 39 137 249 246
EOS8 - - 1 2 9 8 14 39 52 55 39 42 51 52 57 55 54 59 67
Concept Laser - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 6 5 11 11
Trumpf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 3 7
Voxeljet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 3
Sintermask - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
ReaLizer - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SLM Solutions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rapid Shape - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Innovation MediTech - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nanoscribe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BigRep - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Arburg - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DMG Mori - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
German RepRap - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Apium - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hungary
DO3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ireland
Mcor Technologies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Italy
DWS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37 47
Sisma - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sharebot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Netherlands
Additive Industries - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Poland
Sinterit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sweden
Arcam - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 1 4 5 6 15
Höganäs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
South Africa
Fouche 3D Printing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Israel
Stratasys Ltd. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Objet - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 46 94 164 235 316
Massivit 3D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nano Dimension - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4 4
Solido - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65 31 264
Cubital - - - 5 6 7 5 3 3 2 2 0 0 - - - - - -
Other9 - - - 1 - 5 3 - 15 - 1 3 - 1 1 - - - -
Year Total 34 104 114 82 111 157 320 525 792 1,043 988 1,184 1,319 1,301 1,470 1,871 2,854 3,526 4,151
Cumulative Total 138 252 334 445 602 922 1,447 2,239 3,282 4,270 5,454 6,773 8,074 9,544 11,415 14,269 17,795 21,946
Source: Wohlers Associates, Inc.

Footnotes:
1 In 2006, 2005, and 2004, Stratasys sold a total of 1,796, 1,297, and 1,094 systems, respectively. Sales of systems from Objet account for the difference
between these numbers and those listed in the table.
2 Includes beta and rental units.
3 In February 2003, 3D Systems indicated that it had sold 152 SLA machines, 57 SLS machines, and 88 ThermoJet machines in 2002. The company’s
Form 10-K, which was made available much later, stated sales of 139 SLA machines and 44 SLS machines.
4 Wohlers Associates’ estimate based on input from a range of industry sources. The machine manufacturer did not supply the data.
5 Includes sales from the first half of the year only. Sales from the second half of the year were included in 3D Systems’ 2001 total.
6 Estimates were provided by system manufacturers and other industry sources in Japan.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
7 In early 2001, Teijin Seiki acquired NTT Data CMET and renamed the merged company CMET Inc. The 30 units reported by CMET for 2001 include the
units sold by both companies in 2001 before the merger.
8 1990–1996 figures include both stereolithography and LS machines. In an agreement with 3D Systems, EOS discontinued its Stereos stereolithography
systems in 1997.
9 Includes unit sales from BPM Technology, Generis, Mitsui, Röders, Soligen, and others. These companies have not manufactured or sold AM systems in
many years.
10 Includes both LENS and aerosol jet systems.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Appendix C: Metal AM Comparison Matrix
Appendix C: Metal This appendix provides a comparison of 63 metal AM processes, listed

alphabetically. Its purpose is to provide a quick reference. Due to the
AM comparison nuances of each, it is not possible to describe them completely in a
matrix tabular format. Most of the data was collected directly from the machine
developers and is reported as claimed. The table was updated in
February 2022. It is not an all-inclusive list of metal AM processes.
Atomic Diffusion
Additive
Technology 3D Metal Printing Additive Binder Jetting Binder Jetting
Micromanufacturing
Manufacturing
Company Gefertec Exaddon Markforged Digital Metal/Höganäs ExOne

website www.gefertec.de www.exaddon.com www.markforged.com www.digitalmetal.tech www.exone.com
Company process 3D Metal Printing Additive Atomic Diffusion Additive
Binder Jetting Binder Jetting
name (3DMP) Micromanufacturing (µAM) Manufacturing (ADAM)
ISO/ASTM process directed energy deposition vat photopolymerization material extrusion binder jetting binder jetting
machines, equipment, machines, equipment, machines, equipment, machines, equipment,

Offerings and services
machine and material
software, and services and services software, and services
high precision and low–
aerospace, automotive,
neuroprosthetics, small series production, mid series production for
defense, consumer,
Target markets n/a semiconductors, research, prototyping, and R&D for aerospace, automotive,
medical, tooling,
frequency technologies various markets consumer,
architecture, and more
medical, tooling and more
printing: 200 cm³ per hour
printing: 3–5 hours,
15–30 hours for debinding (12.2 in3 per hour),
Key process time ~4–5 hours, up to 4 µm per second 36 hours for curing and
and thermal processing of 15–30 hours for curing
for 125 mm (5 in) cube depending on material (157.5 µin) thermal processing
metal and thermal processing of
of metal
metal
create processing data,
data preparation, printing, data preparation, printing, data preparation,
Process steps 3DMP process of raw part,
n/a debinding, sintering, curing, sintering, post- printing, curing, sintering,
(CAD to part) scanning of part, milling of
post-processing processing post-processing
final part
extrudable filament metal
metal powder, inkjet metal powder, inkjet
Raw material form metal wire resin powder in polymer/wax
binder binder
matrix
17-4PH, 304L, 316L, M2
and H13 tool steels,
steel alloys, nickel-based
Inconel 625, CoCr,
alloys, aluminum alloys, 17-4PH, H13, D2, A2, 316L, 17-4PH, Ti-6Al-4V,
Available metals copper, titanium gr. 5,
copper
Inconel 625 Inconel 625, Mar-247
copper, tungsten; 316,
420, and tungsten with
magnesium alloys
bronze, ceramics,
ceramic-metal composites
Composition of
100% of metal/alloy used n/a 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of alloy used
finished part
Density range of
>99% >99% ≥96% >96% 97%
finished part
Material properties of equal or better than similar to cold drawn comparable to cast comparable to cast comparable to cast
finished part cast parts copper and MIM parts and MIM parts and MIM parts
<0.5
Detail capability ±0.00025 0.05–0.20 0.035 0.03
(0.02)
as small as X mm (in) (0.0000098) (0.0019–0.0079) (0.00138) (0.0012)
with milling
Accuracy <0.1
from CAD to part or (0.004) n/a n/a n/a ±1%
tool insert mm (in) with milling
as printed: 5–7 (196–275)

<1
Surface finish peening: 2–4 (78–157) as printed, 3
(39) n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) super finish: 0.5–2 (20– (118)
with milling
78)
Conformal cooling no n/a yes yes yes
203 x 180 x 69
Maximum part size 3 m³ 1 235 x 68.3 x 80 (8.0 x 7.1 x 2.7) 600 x 410 x 330
mm (in) (183,070 in³) (0.04) (9.25 x 2.69 x 3.19) typically small part (26 x 16.4 x 13)
production
minimum feature size: 100
compare material
Geometric compare binder jetting and µm, minimum wall
n/a n/a extrusion and MIM/sinter
limitations MIM/sinter guidelines thickness: 100 µm, similar
guidelines
design guidelines to MIM

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Bound Metal Digital Light Direct Metal

Technology Cold Metal Fusion Cold Spray
Deposition Processing Deposition
Company Desktop Metal Headmade Materials Impact Innovations Admatec DM3D Technology, LLC
website www.desktopmetal.com www.headmade-materials.de www.impact-innovations.com www.admateceurope.com www.dm3dtech.com
Company process Bound Metal Deposition Direct Metal Deposition
Cold Metal Fusion Cold Spray Digital Light Processing
name (BMD) (DMD)
ISO/ASTM process material extrusion powder bed fusion cold spray vat photopolymerization directed energy deposition
machines, equipment, machine, materials, machines, equipment, machines, equipment,

Offerings software, and services
materials and service
service, software and services software, and services
aerophysics, biomedical,
small series production, aerospace, industrial,
aerospace, consumer dental, oil and gas, tooling, gas military,
Target markets prototyping, and R&D
products, automotive
automotive, electrical,
power generation, hardfacing, repair
for various markets power, and energy
aerospace, R&D
printing: 16 cm³ per hour
Key process time (1 in³ per hour)
2–40 hours, depending on
for 125 mm (5 in) 15–30 hours for debind n/a n/a
layer thickness
n/a
cube and thermal processing
of metal
metal infiltrated powder is
data preparation, printing,
Process steps printed in a polymer PBF
debinding, sintering, n/a n/a n/a
(CAD to part) system before debinding
post-processing
and sintering
extrudable metal rods
metal powder
Raw material form metal powder in metal infiltrated powder powder
infiltrated resin
metal powder
polymer/wax matrix
aluminum, Inconel,
stainless steel 316L
17-4PH, AlSI 4140d, stainless steel, CoCr, copper, steel, titanium,
Available metals H13, 316L titanium, tungsten precious metals,
and 17-4 PH, n/a
Inconel 625, copper,
refractory metals,
Composition of
100% of metal/alloy used n/a 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used
finished part
Density range of
98% >98% n/a 96–99% n/a
finished part
Material properties of comparable to cast comparable to equivalent equal or better than

similar to wrought metal n/a
finished part and MIM parts cast or wrought parts cast parts
Detail capability 0.05–0.20

n/a n/a n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.0019–0.0079)
Accuracy
±0.1
from CAD to part or n/a
(0.004)
n/a n/a n/a
tool insert mm (in)
Surface finish similar to

n/a n/a n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) BJT and PBF
Conformal cooling yes yes no yes n/a
Multi-material
yes no yes no yes
capability
Maximum part size 240 x 150 x 155 dependent on 260 x 220 x 500 673 x 673 x 474
n/a
mm (in) (9.4 x 6.0 x 6.1) machine used (10.2 x 8.7 x 19.7) (26.5 x 26.5 x 18.7)
compare material
Geometric shrinkage and overhangs overhangs and thin walls
extrusion and MIM/sinter n/a n/a
limitations depending on sintering without machining
guidelines

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Direct Metal Direct Metal

Technology Direct Metal Printing Direct Metal Printing Direct Metal Tooling
Laser Melting Laser Sintering
Company GE Additive EOS 3D Systems GF Machining Solutions InssTek

website www.ge.com/additive www.eos.info www.3dsystems.com www.gfmsadditive.com www.insstek.com
Company process Direct Metal Laser Melting Direct Metal Laser Direct Metal
Direct Metal Printing Direct Metal Tooling
name (DMLM) Sintering (DMLS) Printing (DMP)
ISO/ASTM process powder bed fusion powder bed fusion powder bed fusion powder bed fusion directed energy deposition
machines, equipment and
machines, equipment, metal part printing, machines, equipment, machines, equipment,
Offerings and materials
materials, and application
machines, and equipment and services software, and services
development
direct metal parts for high-quality metal tool PIM, investment casting, automotive, aerospace,
medical, aerospace, inserts, prototypes and dental prostheses, and aerospace, automotive, heavy industry,
Target markets automotive and direct metal parts for direct metal parts for and medicine technology manufacturing/
dental industries various markets various markets repair, medical
Key process time 0.5–3 days, 0.5–3 days, 0.5–3 days, 0.5–3 days,
for 125 mm (5 in) depending on material depending on material depending on material depending on material n/a
cube and accuracy and accuracy and accuracy and accuracy
create supports, slice
create supports, slice create supports,
STL- or CAD-data, create supports, slice import CAD-data,
STL- or CAD-data, DMLS slice STL- or CAD-data,
Process steps LaserCUSING process, STL- or CAD-data, LMF generate path, LMD
process, remove supports, DMP process, remove
(CAD to part) remove support structure, process, post-processing process, post-processing
post-processing supports, post-processing
post-processing as desired if needed
as desired as desired
as desired
metal powder (single
Raw material form metal powder
metal or blends)
metal powder metal powder metal powder
stainless steels, tool
tool steels, stainless
steels, titanium and stainless steels, tool
steels, CoCr alloys, LaserForm Ni718
aluminum alloys, CoCr steels, non-ferrous alloys, steel, stainless steel,
Available metals alloys, nickel alloys,
titanium, bronze-based
titanium and aluminum
LaserForm Ti Gr23
titanium alloys and copper
alloys, nickel alloys, LaserForm AlSi10Mg
bronze alloys, alloys, precious metals
aluminum alloys
gold, and silver
Composition of
100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used
finished part
Density range of >99.5%

>99.5% >99% >99% >99.5%
finished part + porous coating (40%)
equal or better than equal or better than equal or better than equal or better than
Material properties of properties of cast parts, properties of cast parts, properties of cast parts, properties of cast parts, equal or better than
finished part comparable to properties comparable to properties comparable to properties comparable to properties cast parts
of wrought parts of wrought parts of wrought parts of wrought parts
Detail capability 0.1–0.2 typically 0.3 0.1 typically 0.3

n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.004–0.008) (0.012) (0.004) (0.01)
Accuracy ≤ 0.2% with ±100 μm

±0.05 typically ±0.02–0.05 ±0.05
from CAD to part or (0.002) (0.0008–0.0020) (0.002)
minimum n/a
tool insert mm (in) (0.003)
4.5–7 (177–275) directly

typically 9 (354) as
Surface finish after LaserCUSING, can be polished close
laser sintered, n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) 2–4 (79–157) after to mirror finish
3 (118) after shot peening
microblasting
Conformal cooling yes yes yes yes n/a
Multi-material
yes no no no yes
capability
Maximum part size 800 x 400 x 500 400 x 400 x 360 275 x 275 x 380 510 x 510 x 490 800 x 1,000 x 650
mm (in) (31.5 x 15.7 x 19.7) (15.8 x 15.8 x 14.7) (10.82 x 10.82 x 14.96) (20.1 x 20.8 x19.3) (31.5 x 39.4 x 25.6)
minimum wall thickness

Geometric minimum wall thickness minimum wall thickness
0.1–0.2 mm n/a n/a
limitations 0.180 mm (0.007 in) 0.150 mm (0.006 in)
(0.004–0.008 in)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Electron Beam Electron Beam

Directed Energy Directed Energy Directed Energy
Technology Additive Additive
Deposition Deposition Deposition
Manufacturing Manufacturing
Company BeAM FormAlloy RPM Innovations Sciaky Wayland Additive
website www.beam-machines.com www.formalloy.com www.rpm-innovations.com www.sciaky.com www.waylandadditive.com
Company process Construction Laser Directed Energy Electron Beam Additive
Freeform NeuBeam
name Additive Direct (CLAD) Deposition Manufacturing (EBAM)
ISO/ASTM process directed energy deposition directed energy deposition directed energy deposition directed energy deposition powder bed fusion
machines, equipment,
machines, equipment, machines, equipment, machines, equipment,
Offerings software, engineering,
and services software, and services software, and services
machines
and services
aeronautics, aerospace, aerospace, space, oil and aerospace, oil and gas,
automotive, shipbuilding, gas, power generation, automotive, aerospace, defense and space, direct metal parts for
Target markets defense, luxury, energy, defense, tooling, general tooling, energy medical, ship industry, and industrial applications
medical, and R&D industry, automotive, R&D energy
Key process time 2–10 hours,
7 hours (MacroCLAD), 7 kg/h (15.4 lbs/h), 9 kg per hour
for 125 mm (5 in) depending on materials depending on material
n/a
(20 lbs per hour)
-
cube and accuracy
load file (STEP, DGK,
IGES, native files e.g., import CAD model, tool-
create processing data, STL- or CAD-data, EBM
Process steps Solidworks, ProE, CATIA), path generation, confirm
n/a RPD process, forging/ process, remove supports,
(CAD to part) production on system, parameters, deposition
milling of final part post-processing
post-processing process, post-processing
as desired
as desired
Raw material form metal powder metal powder metal powder metal wire metal powder
stainless steels, tool
nickel alloys, steel alloys,
steels, titanium and titanium alloys, Inconel,
titanium alloys, copper
titanium alloys, nickel tantalum, tungsten, steel,
Available metals alloys, tungsten carbides,
alloys, cobalt alloys, titanium and nickel alloys
aluminum, nickel-
n/a
aluminum alloys,
copper alloys, based alloys
composites, custom alloys
cobalt alloys
Composition of
finished part
Density range of
up to 99.9% >99% 100% >99% >99.9%
finished part
equal or better than
Material properties of comparable to equivalent equal or better than equal or better than cast comparable to equivalent properties of cast parts,
finished part cast or wrought parts cast parts parts cast or wrought parts comparable to properties
of wrought parts
Detail capability 0.8 0.5 1.5

n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.03) (0.02) (0.06)
Accuracy ± 0.1–0.2 ±0.1–0.5

(0.004–0.008) (±0.004–0.020), ±0.2
from CAD to part or depending on material and depending on material
n/a n/a
(0.008)
tool insert mm (in) manufacturing conditions and process variables
as low as 10 (394);
Surface finish for 316L: 6
dependent on material n/a n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) (236)
and process variables
Conformal cooling no n/a n/a no n/a
Multi-material multi-layered and

yes yes yes no
capability graded parts
1,200 x 800 x 800

1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000
Maximum part size (47.2 x 28 x 28) 1,500 x 1,500 x 2,100 5,791 x 1,229 x 1,229 300 x 300 x 300
(39.4 x 39.4 x 39.4)
mm (in) can be increased with (59.1 x 59.1 x 82.7) (228 x 48 x 48) (11.8 x 11.8 x 11.8)
or greater, custom-build
special machines
Geometric
n/a n/a n/a no internal structures n/a
limitations

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Electron Beam Electron Beam Electron Beam Electron Beam Electron Beam
Technology
Melting Melting Metal 3D Powder Bed Fusion Selective Melting
Company GE Additive Sailong Metal Tada Electric Freemelt QuickBeam Tech

website www.ge.com/additive www.slmetal.com www.tadadenki.jp www.freemelt.com www.qbeam-3d.com
Company process Electron Beam Electron Beam Electron Beam Metal 3D Electron Beam Electron Beam Selective
name Melting (EBM) Melting (EBM) Printing Powder Bed Fusion Melting (EBSM)
ISO/ASTM process powder bed fusion powder bed fusion powder bed fusion powder bed fusion powder bed fusion
machines, equipment, machines, equipment, machines

Offerings and materials and materials
machines machines
and materials
direct metal parts for direct metal parts for

direct metal parts for direct metal parts for lab-scale operations
Target markets aerospace, and
industrial applications industrial applications development platforms
aerospace, and
orthopedic implants orthopedic implants
Key process time 0.5–3 days, 0.5–3 days,
for 125 mm (5 in) depending on material n/a n/a - depending on material
cube and accuracy and accuracy
create supports, slice create supports, slice create supports, slice create supports, slice create supports, slice
STL- or CAD-data, EBM STL- or CAD-data, EBM STL- or CAD-data, EBM STL- or CAD-data, EBM STL- or CAD-data, EBSM
Process steps
process, remove supports, process, remove supports, process, remove supports, process, remove supports, process, remove supports,
(CAD to part) post-processing post-processing post-processing post-processing post-processing
as desired as desired as desired as desired as desired
Raw material form metal powder metal powder metal powder metal powder metal powder
titanium alloys, CoCr
titanium alloys,
alloys, tantalum alloy,
Available metals CoCr alloys, nickel alloys, n/a n/a n/a
superalloys, copper alloy,
TiAl, copper alloys
refractory metals, TiAl
Composition of
100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used not specified 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used
finished part
Density range of
100% 100% n/a >99.9% >99.9%
finished part
equal or better than equal or better than equal or better than equal or better than
Material properties of properties of cast parts, properties of cast parts, properties of cast parts, properties of cast parts,
n/a
finished part comparable to properties comparable to properties comparable to properties comparable to properties
of wrought parts of wrought parts of wrought parts of wrought parts
Detail capability 0.25

n/a n/a n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.010)
Accuracy
±0.2 ±0.2 ±0.2
from CAD to part or (0.008)
n/a n/a
(0.008) (0.008)
tool insert mm (in)
Surface finish 10–20

n/a n/a n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) (394–787)
Conformal cooling yes n/a n/a n/a n/a
Multi-material
no no no no no
capability
Maximum part size 350 dia. x 380 200 x 200 x 200 250 x 250 x 300 100 dia. x 100 350 x 350 x 400
mm (in) (13.8 dia. x 15) (7.8 x 7.8 x 7.8) (9.8 x 9.8 x 11.8) (3.9 dia. x 3.9) (13.8 x 13.8 x 15.7)
Geometric minimum wall thickness

n/a n/a n/a n/a
limitations 0.25 mm (0.01 in)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Hybrid Additive Laser Cladding Laser Deposition

Technology Filament Fabrication Intelligent Fusion
Manufacturing Deposition Welding
Company Xerion Matsuura Velo3D Bright Laser Technologies DMG Mori

website www.xerion.de www.matsuura.co.jp www.velo3d.com www.xa-blt.com www.dmgmori.com
Selective Laser Sintering Laser Deposition Welding
Company process Laser Cladding Deposition
Filament Fabrication (SLS) combined with High Intelligent Fusion and metal-cutting
name (LSF)
Speed Milling (HSM) machining
ISO/ASTM process material extrusion powder bed fusion powder bed fusion directed energy deposition directed energy deposition
machines, equipment, machines, equipment, machine, materials, machines, equipment, machines, equipment,
Offerings software, and services software, and materials and software materials, and services software, and services
aviation, aerospace, aerospace, tooling,
spare parts mold and die market, automotive, dental, energy, plant equipment,
Target markets industry, prototyping direct metal parts
aerospace and energy
research, medical, vacuum technology, and
tool making mold making
Key process time 15–30 hours for debind ~2 hours, depending on
for 125 mm (5 in) and thermal n/a 1 hour n/a material and required
cube processing of metal properties
create supports, slice create supports, slice create supports, slice import CAD model in off-
data preparation, printing, CAD-data, PBF process, STL- or CAD-data, PBF CAD-data, PBF process, line programming system,
Process steps
debind, sintering, milling process, remove process, remove support milling process, remove code generation,
(CAD to part) post-processing support structure, post- structure, post-processing support structure, post- deposition process,
processing as desired as desired processing as desired post-processing
extrudable filament
Raw material form metal powder in polymer metal powder powder metal powder metal powder
and wax matrix
titanium, aluminum, high-
Inconel, aluminum, nickel steel alloys, nickel-based
temperature alloys,
Available metals 17-4PH, 316L n/a alloys, Hastelloy C22,
stainless steel, high-
alloys, cobalt alloys,
Scalmalloy, titanium titanium alloys
strength steel, die steel
Composition of
finished part
Density range of
n/a 99–100% n/a n/a >99.8%
finished part
equal or better than equal or better than
Material properties of comparable to cast and properties of cast parts, equal or better than properties of cast parts,
n/a
finished part MIM parts comparable to properties cast parts comparable to properties
of wrought parts of wrought parts
Detail capability 0.3–0.6 0.6–1.0

n/a n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.01–0.02) (0.024–0.040)
Accuracy ± 0.1–0.5
(± 0.004–0.020)
from CAD to part or n/a n/a n/a n/a
depends on material and
tool insert mm (in) process parameters
Surface finish 5–15 10–20

n/a n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) (197–591) (394–787)
Conformal cooling yes yes yes yes yes, but limited
Multi-material
yes n/a no no yes
capability
Maximum part size 245 x 230 x 200 600 x 600 x 500 600 dia. x 550 600 x 600 x 500 500 dia. x 400
mm (in) (9.6 x 9.1 x 7.9) (23.6 x 23.6 x 19.7) (26 x 21.7) (23.6 x 23.6 x 23.6) (19.7 dia. x 15.7)
compare material
Geometric
extrusion and MIM/sinter n/a n/a n/a n/a
limitations guidelines

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Laser Engineered Laser Metal Laser Metal Laser Metal Laser Metal
Technology
Net Shaping Deposition Deposition Deposition Deposition
Company Optomec Yamazaki Mazak Meltio Prima Additive Trumpf

website www.optomec.com www.mazakeu.com www.meltio3d.com www.primaadditive.com www.trumpf.com
Company process Laser Engineered Net Laser Metal Deposition Laser Metal
Laser Metal Deposition Laser Metal Deposition
name Shaping (LENS) (LMD) Deposition (LMD)
ISO/ASTM process directed energy deposition directed energy deposition directed energy deposition directed energy deposition directed energy deposition
machines, equipment
Offerings software, and services software, and services software, and services software, and services
(lasers, optics),
and services
aerospace, oil and gas,
casting, spare parts, automotive, aerospace
energy, aerospace, machinery, medical
automotive, aerospace, welding and cutting, and defense, machine and
Target markets medicine technology,
tooling, energy thermal dynamic tool builders,
industry, shipbuilding,
and defense defense, automotive,
applications, automotive energy, medical
and R&D
Key process time ~1 day, 70 cm³ per hour ~3 hours, depending on
<1 day (5–10 hours ~50 hours, depending
for 125 mm (5 in) n/a (4.3 in3 per hour), material and
LENS time) on material
cube depending on material required properties
import CAD model in off-
line programming system,
slice STL- or CAD-data, import CAD-data,
code generation for laser
Process steps DMS process, remove generate path, LMD
n/a n/a system, deposition
(CAD to part) supports, post-processing process, post-processing
process, post-
as desired if needed
machining/thermal
treatment (if required)
Raw material form metal powder metal powder metal wire and powder metal powder metal powder
tool steels, stainless
tool steels, stainless steels, carbides
steels, titanium, nickel steel, stainless steel, steel, stainless steel, embedded in metallic
aluminum, steel, nickel,
Available metals alloys, cobalt alloys,
CoCr, carbides
titanium alloys, and titanium alloys, and matrices, aluminum alloys,
aluminum alloys, copper aluminum alloys aluminum alloys titanium alloys, nickel
alloys, composites alloys, copper alloys,
cobalt alloys
Composition of 100% of metal/alloy used, material combinations

gradient material 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used
finished part possible
structures are optional
Density range of
99 to 100% n/a >99.5% >99.5% up to 99.9%
finished part
Material properties of comparable to equivalent equal or better than equal or better than cast equal or better than properties of cast parts,
finished part cast or wrought materials cast parts parts cast parts comparable to properties
of wrought parts
Detail capability 0.5 0.2 0.6

n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.020) (0.078) (0.024)
Accuracy ±0.1–0.5
±0.25 (0.004–0.020),
from CAD to part or (0.01)
n/a n/a n/a
depends on material and
tool insert mm (in) process parameters
Surface finish 12–25 40 10–20

n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) (500–1,000) (1,575) (394–787)
yes, or thermally
conductive material can
Conformal cooling be embedded during
n/a yes n/a no
build process
can apply different metals
yes, production of multi-
Multi-material and/or gradient structures 150 x 200 x 450
yes yes layer deposits combining
capability with up to four powder (5.9 x 7.9 x 17.7)
materials is possible
feeders
1,500 x 900 x 900

Maximum part size (59 x 35.4 x 35.4); 850 x 550 x 510 2,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 2,000 x 1,100 x 750
n/a
mm (in) LENS Print Engine (33.5 x 21.7 x 20.1) (78.7 x 39.4 x 39.4) (78.8 x 43.3 x 29.5)
enables larger part sizes
Geometric lower hemisphere

n/a n/a n/a n/a
limitations of movement

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Laser Metal Wire Laser Powder Laser Powder

Technology Laser Metal Fusion Laser Metal Fusion
Additive Bed Fusion Bed Fusion
Company Sisma Trumpf Addere AddUp AMCM

website www.sisma.com www.trumpf.com www.addere.com www.addupsolutions.com www.amcm.com
Company process
Laser Metal Fusion (LMF) Laser Metal Fusion (LMF) Laser Metal Wire Additive Laser Powder Bed Fusion Laser Powder Bed Fusion
name
ISO/ASTM process powder bed fusion powder bed fusion directed energy deposition powder bed fusion powder bed fusion
machines, equipment, machines, equipment, machine, materials, machines, equipment,

Offerings and services and services and services software, and services
customized AM systems
jewelry, aerospace, aerospace, defense,

aerospace, automotive, automotive, aerospace,
Target markets automotive, and medicine
and medicine technology
transportation, marine, oil
tooling, energy
industry, academia
technology and gas, and energy
Key process time 3 days, depending
on material and 0.5–3 days, depending on
for 125 mm (5 in) accuracy, 25 cm³ material and accuracy
n/a n/a n/a
cube (1.53 in³) per hour
create supports, slice create supports, slice create supports, slice
Process steps STL- or CAD-data, LMF STL- or CAD-data, LMF STL- or CAD-data, LMF
n/a n/a
(CAD to part) process, post-processing process, post-processing process, post-processing
as desired as desired as desired
Raw material form metal powder metal powder wire metal powder metal powder
stainless steel, tool steel,
stainless steel, tool steel,
CoCr, aluminum, nickel
CoCr, aluminum, nickel carbon steel, titanium, aluminum, steel, nickel, specific to customer
Available metals alloys, titanium, copper
alloy, titanium, precious stainless steel, Inconel titanium demand
alloys, precious
metals, bronze
metals, bronze
Composition of
finished part
Density range of
>99.5% >99.5% n/a >99.5% >99.5%
finished part
equal or better than cast equal or better than cast equal or better than
Material properties of parts, comparable parts, comparable equal or better than equal or better than properties of cast parts,
finished part to properties of to properties of cast parts cast parts comparable to properties
wrought parts wrought parts of wrought parts
Detail capability typically, 0.1–0.3

n/a n/a n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.004–0.01)
Accuracy
typically, ±0.02–0.05 0.035
(0.0008–0.0020)
n/a
(0.0014)
n/a
tool insert mm (in)
Surface finish 5
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) (196)
Conformal cooling yes yes no yes yes
Multi-material
no no n/a no no
capability
Maximum part size 300 dia. x 400 300 dia. x 400 40,000 x 8,000 x 2,000 350 x 350 x 350
defined by customer
mm (in) (11.8 dia. x 15.7) (11.8 dia. x 15.7) (1,575 x 310 x 75) (13.8 x 13.8 x 13.8)
certain high-aspect ratio

minimum wall thickness minimum wall thickness
Geometric and overhang features
0.1–0.2 mm 0.1–0.2 mm n/a dependent on system
limitations require the use of
(0.004–0.008 in) (0.004–0.008 in)
support material

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Laser Powder Laser Powder Laser-based Powder

Technology MELD Metal Cold Spray
Bed Fusion Bed Fusion Bed Fusion
Company Aconity 3D Additive Industries Xact Metal MELD Manufacturing SPEE3D

website www.aconity3d.com www.additiveindustries.com www.xactmetal.com www.meldmanufacturing.com www.spee3d.com
Company process Laser-based
Laser Powder Bed Fusion Laser Powder Bed Fusion MELD Metal Cold Spray
name Powder Bed Fusion
ISO/ASTM process powder bed fusion powder bed fusion powder bed fusion friction stir welding cold spray

Offerings machines
and services materials, and services and services and services
aerospace, automotive, aerospace, automotive,
direct metal parts, and
medical, food tech, automotive, manufacturing mining, oil
Target markets industrial applications
machinery, and
general tooling
aerospace, tooling and gas, defense,
applications
oil and gas and electronics
Key process time
~0.7 hours depending on ~1 hour depending on
for 125 mm (5 in) n/a n/a n/a
material material
cube
create supports, slice create supports, slice
STL- or CAD-data, PBF import CAD, simulate/
Process steps data, AM process, heat data, AM process, heat
process, remove support n/a generate tool path, print,
(CAD to part) treatment, further post- treatment, further post-
structure, post- heat treat, final machining
processing as desired processing as desired
processing as desired
Raw material form metal powder metal powder metal powder solid bar or powders(s) metal powder
stainless steel: 316L, 17-4
PH, 15-15, 400 Series
Ti-6Al-4V, AlSi10Mg, super alloys: 718, 625,
aliminium, titanium, steel – steel, titanium, aluminum, aluminum (6061, pure
Scalmalloy, 1.4404 CoCr F75, Hastelloy X
Available metals open platform for
(AISI 316L), 1.2709, tool steels: maraging
magnesium, copper, and other blends),
materials development nickel copper (pure)
IN718, IN62 M300, H13, aluminum
AlSi10Mg, titanium
Ti-6Al-4, Copper, Bronze
Composition of material combinations

100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used
finished part possible
Density range of
>99.5 % >99.5 % 99 to 100% Up to 100% up to 99.9%
finished part
Material properties of equal or better than equal or better than properties of cast parts, equal or better than
near-wrought or better
finished part cast parts cast parts comparable to properties properties of cast parts
of wrought parts
Detail capability 6.0

n/a n/a n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.24)
Accuracy ±0.05 + 0.0002 x part

length equal or better than
(0.002 + 8*10-6 x part
n/a n/a
cast parts
tool insert mm (in) length)
Surface finish equal or better than cast

n/a n/a n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) parts
Conformal cooling yes yes yes no no
Multi-material yes,
no no yes yes
capability with MIDI system
Maximum part size 420 x 420 x 400 420 x 420 x 400 254 x 330 x 330 914.4 x 304.8 x 304.8 300 x 300 x 300
mm (in) (16.5 x 16.5 x 15.7) (16.5 x 16.5 x 15.7) (10 x 13 x 13) (36 x 12 x 12) (11.8 x 11.8 x 11.8)

Geometric
n/a 0.1–0.2 mm n/a n/a line-of-sight process
limitations (0.004–0.008 in)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Metal Filament Metal Powder Bed Metal Powder Bed

Technology Metal Jet Metal Laser Melting
Printing Fusion Fusion
Company Multec HP Farsoon Eplus3D Renishaw

website www.multec.de www.hp.com www.farsoon.com www.eplus3d.com www.renishaw.com
Company process Metal Powder Bed Fusion
Metal Filament Printing HP Metal Jet Metal Laser Melting Metal Powder Bed Fusion
name (MPBF)
ISO/ASTM process material extrusion binder jetting powder bed fusion powder bed fusion powder bed fusion
machines, equipment and
services, trainings,
Offerings software, and services software, and services materials, and services and services
powders, software,
metrology, and
process control
direct metal parts,
medicine technology,
mass production of parts
aerospace, automotive, aerospace, automotive,
prototyping, energy, for aerospace, automotive,
Target markets robotics, spare parts consumer, medical,
medical, dental, n/a dental, tooling, and high-
tooling, jewelry tech manufacturing
tooling and more
applications as well as
creative industries
Key process time 15–30 hours for curing 0.5–3 days,
for 125 mm (5 in) n/a and thermal n/a n/a depending on material
cube processing of metal and accuracy
STL-data, file preparation
create supports, slice create supports, slice
and parameter
data preparation, printing, data preparation, printing, STL- or CAD-data, PBF STL- or CAD-data, MPBF
Process steps assignment process
debinding, sintering, curing, sintering, process, remove support process, remove support
(CAD to part) buildup, remove support
post-processing post-processing structure, post-processing structure, post-processing
structure, and
as desired as desired
finish if required
metal powder,
Raw material form filament
inkjet binder
metal powder metal powder metal powder
titanium alloy, aluminum
titanium alloys, aluminum alloy, stainless steel,
stainless steel, titanium,
alloys, nickel-based alloys, maraging steel, high-
Available metals n/a n/a
stainless steels, maraging strength steel, CoCr alloy,
CoCr, tool steel, nickel
alloys, aluminum alloys
steel, CoCr alloys, bronze nickel-based alloy,
copper alloy
Composition of
n/a 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used
finished part
Density range of
n/a >93% >99% 99–100% >99.8 %
finished part
equal or better than equal or better than equal or better than
Material properties of comparable to cast and properties of cast parts, properties of cast parts, properties of cast parts,
n/a
finished part MIM parts comparable to properties comparable to properties comparable to properties
of wrought parts of wrought parts of wrought parts
Detail capability 0.05–0.10 <0.2

n/a n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.001–0.0039) (0.008)
±0.05 over 100

Accuracy (0.002 over 4)
from CAD to part or n/a n/a n/a n/a geometric accuracy
tool insert mm (in) is dependent on
part geometry
Surface finish 2–12

n/a n/a n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) (78–472)
Conformal cooling yes n/a n/a n/a yes
Multi-material
no no no no no
capability
430 x 320 x 200

Maximum part size 250 x 220 x 220 (29.5 x 13.0 x 9.84) 720 x 420 x 420 655 x 655 x 800 250 x 250 x 350
mm (in) (9.8 x 8.7 x 8.7 typically small part (28.3 x 16.5 x 16.5) (25.8 x 25.8 x 31.5) (9.8 x 9.8 x 13.8)
production
minimum wall thickness:
sacrificial support material
Geometric compare MIM/sinter 0.2 mm (0.008 in),
must be able to be n/a n/a
limitations guidelines 45° overhangs
removed
without supports

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Micro Laser Rapid Plasma Selective Laser

Technology NanoParticle Jetting Powder Bed Fusion
Sintering Deposition Melting
Company 3D Micro Print XJet Prima Additive Norsk Titanium Longyuan

website www.3dmicroprint.com www.xjet3d.com www.primaadditive.com www.norsktitanium.com www.lyafs.com.cn
Company process Rapid Plasma Selective Laser
Micro Laser Sintering NanoParticle Jetting Powder Bed Fusion
name Deposition (RPD) Melting
ISO/ASTM process powder bed fusion material jetting powder bed fusion directed energy deposition powder bed fusion
machine, materials, machines, equipment, machines, equipment, raw materials provider or a machines, equipment
Offerings and services software, and services software, and services full-service parts provider and services
high-precision and low- automotive, aerospace aerospace, defense and
aerospace, automotive,
medical, aerospace, medium series production and defense, machine and space, engines,
Target markets semiconductor of parts for various tool builders, maintenance repair
medical, and tooling
industries
industries energy, medical and overhaul
Key process time 2.5–5 hours depending on
15–30 hours for thermal
for 125 mm (5 in) n/a
processing of metal
material and part n/a ~5 days
cube geometry
create processing data, STL- or CAD-data, PBF
Process steps debind/support removal,
n/a n/a RPD process, forging/ process, remove support
(CAD to part) sintering,
milling of final part structure, post-processing
post-processing
as desired
inkfluid cartridges loaded
Raw material form powder with nanometal metal powder metal wire metal powder
powder/ceramics
stainless steel, titanium
stainless steel, maraging titanium alloys, nickel
alloys, aluminum alloys,
Available metals stainless steel 316L, ZrO2 steel, Inconel, titanium, alloys, tool steel,
maraging steel, CoCr
CoCr, aluminum, copper stainless steel
alloy, nickel-based alloys
Composition of
finished part
Density range of
n/a >97% n/a >99% n/a
finished part
Material properties of comparable to cast and equal or better than equal or better than equal or better than
n/a
finished part MIM parts cast parts properties of cast parts properties of cast parts
x,y: 0.05–0.1
Detail capability <0.02 (0.002–0.004)
n/a n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.0008) z: 0.005–0.010
(0.0002–0.0004)
Accuracy
from CAD to part or n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
tool insert mm (in)
Surface finish <20

n/a n/a n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) (787)
Conformal cooling no yes yes no no
Multi-material
no yes no yes no
capability
Maximum part size 60 dia. x 30 500 x 280 x 200 258 x 258 x 350 900 x 600 x 300 260 x 260 x 320
mm (in) (2.4 dia. x 1.2) (19.7 x 11.0 x 7.9) (10.2 x 10.2 x 13.8) (35.4 x 23.6 x 11.8) (10.2 x 10.2 x 12.6)
minimum feature size

Geometric 300 µm (0.0012 in), internal structures
n/a n/a n/a
limitations compare MIM/sintering not possible
guidelines

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Technology Selective Laser Melting Selective Laser Melting Selective Laser Melting Single Pass Jetting
Company SLM Solutions Bright Laser Technologies DMG Mori Desktop Metal
website www.slm-solutions.com www.xa-blt.com www.dmgmori.com www.desktopmetal.com
Company process Selective Laser Selective Laser Selective Laser Single Pass Jetting
name Melting Melting Melting (SPJ)
ISO/ASTM process powder bed fusion powder bed fusion powder bed fusion binder jetting
machines, equipment, materials,
machines, equipment, materials, machines, equipment, materials, machines, equipment, software,
Offerings process monitoring software,
and services and services and services
and services
direct metal parts, medical and direct metal parts for applications mass production of parts for
dental implants, aviation and in aerospace, automotive, automotive, aerospace, dental, aerospace, automotive,
Target markets aeronautics, automotive, energy medicine, electronics, and energy medical, tooling consumer, medical, tooling and
and general tooling applications industries more
printing: up to 12.000 cm³ per
Key process time 0.5–3 days, depending 0.5–3 days, hour (732 in³ per hour)
for 125 mm (5 in) on material and n/a depending on material 15–30 hours for curing and
cube accuracy and machine and accuracy thermal
processing of metal
create supports, slice STL- or create supports, slice STL- or create supports, slice STL- or
Process steps CAD-data, PBF process, remove CAD-data, PBF process, remove CAD-data, PBF process, remove
curing, sintering,
(CAD to part) support structure, post-processing support structure, post-processing support structure, post-processing
post-processing
as desired as desired as desired
metal powder,
Raw material form metal powder metal powder metal powder
inkjet binder
pure titanium, titanium alloys, tool
steels, stainless steels, aluminum titanium alloy, high-temperature titanium alloy, aluminum alloys,
Available metals alloys, nickel-chrome alloys, alloy, high-strength steel, stainless steel, maraging steel, n/a
CoCr, stainless steel nickel-based alloys, CoCr alloys
copper alloys
Composition of
100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used
finished part
99–100% (can be produced

Density range of
with controlled 99–100% >99.5% n/a
finished part porosity for EPS tooling)
equal or better than properties of equal or better than properties of equal or better than properties of
Material properties of comparable to cast
cast parts, comparable to cast parts, comparable to cast parts, comparable to
finished part and MIM parts
properties of wrought parts properties of wrought parts properties of wrought parts
Detail capability <0.1 <0.1 0.05

n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.004) (0.004) (0.0019)
Accuracy
±0.05 over 100 ±0.05 over 100
from CAD to part or (0.002 over 4)
n/a
(0.002 over 4)
n/a
tool insert mm (in)
Surface finish <10 <10

n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) (393) (393)
Conformal cooling yes yes yes n/a
Multi-material
no no no no
capability
750 x 330 x 250

Maximum part size 500 x 280 x 350 800 x 800 x 800 300 x 300 x 300
(29.5 x 13.0 x 9.84)
mm (in) (19.7 x 11 x 13.8) (31.5 x 31.5 x 23.6) (11.8 x 11.8 x 11.8)
typically small part production

Geometric 0.14 mm (0.006 in), minimum wall thickness 0.2 mm
n/a compare MIM/sinter guidelines
limitations 20° overhangs (0.008 in)
without supports

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Ultrasonic Additive Wire-Arc Additive Wire-Arc Additive

Technology xBeam Metal Printing
Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing
Company Fabrisonic Addilan Yamazaki Mazak xBeam3D

website www.fabrisonic.com www.addilan.com www.mazakeu.de www.xbeam3d.com
Company process Ultrasonic Additive
Wire-Arc Additive Manufacturing Wire-Arc Additive Manufacturing xBeam Metal Printing
name Manufacturing (UAM)
ISO/ASTM process sheet lamination directed energy deposition directed energy deposition directed energy deposition
metal part printing machines, equipment, machines, equipment,

Offerings and machines and services software, and services
machine and equipment
research, advanced material

aerospace, machinery,
fabrication, thermal management, aeronautics, aerospace, energy automotive, aerospace,
Target markets aerospace, and and shipbuilding, among others tooling, energy
oil and gas, and
power generation
dissimilar metals
Key process time
2–3 hours, up to 6 kg per hour
for 125 mm (5 in) 1 day
(13.2 lbs per hour)
n/a less than 1 hour
cube
metal tape or sheets are layered, slice CAD file, print part
Process steps
then trimmed by n/a n/a and post-processing,
(CAD to part) integrated CNC including machining
25 x 0.2 mm (1 x 0.1 in) metal
Raw material form tape or 0.2 mm (0.01 in) thick metal wire wire wire
metal sheets
aluminum, copper, stainless steel, titanium alloys, superalloys aluminum, steel, nickel, CoCr,
Available metals steel, metal matrix hybrids and aluminum alloys carbides
aluminum, stainless steel, copper
Composition of 100% of metal/alloy or metal

100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used 100% of metal/alloy used
finished part matrix hybrids used
Density range of
>99.5% >99% n/a >99%
finished part
in x-y plane, properties equal to
Material properties of equal or better than properties of equal or better than equal or better than
incoming feedstock, slightly
finished part cast parts cast parts properties of cast parts
less in z-direction
Detail capability 0.03 1.5

n/a n/a
as small as X mm (in) (0.001) (0.06)
Accuracy ±0.013
from CAD to part or (0.0005) over n/a n/a n/a
tool insert mm (in) entire build volume
Surface finish 15 <1000

n/a n/a
Ra µm (µin) (590) (39,370)
Conformal cooling yes n/a n/a no
Multi-material possible with multi-

yes yes yes
capability material laminates
Maximum part size 1,829 x 1,829 x 914 850 x 550 x 510

n/a custom machines available
mm (in) (72 x 72 x 36) (33.5 x 21.7 x 20.1)
certain high aspect ratio and

Geometric
overhang features require the use n/a n/a thin walls and overhangs
limitations of removable support material
Source: Wohlers Associates and other industry sources

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Report 2022 Appendix D: 3D Scanning Systems
Appendix D: 3D Several pages of tables compare the technology, work volume, accuracy,
and speed of 3D scanning systems from around the world. Go to
scanning systems wohlersassociates.com/scan2022.pdf to view the information. These
by Michael Raphael pages are exclusive and not published elsewhere. All company
information and product specification data are subject to change.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Wohlers Associates • 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030
Washington, DC 20036 USA • 970-225-0086 • wohlersassociates.com
ISBN 9780991333295
90000
9 780991 333295

Wohlers22 Eb

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wohlers22 Eb

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wohlers22 Eb

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wohlers Report 2022

3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX6HS*07

COPYRIGHT © 2022 BY ASTM INTERNATIONAL. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

COPYRIGHT © 2022 3 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

COPYRIGHT © 2022 4 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

COPYRIGHT © 2022 5 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

DESIGN FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING ............................................................................................................................182

COPYRIGHT © 2022 6 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

COPYRIGHT © 2022 7 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

Sandia National Laboratories ...................................................................................................................................308

COPYRIGHT © 2022 8 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

COPYRIGHT © 2022 9 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

Acknowledgments Wohlers Associates thanks the hundreds of individuals and organizations

The following 85 contributors authored sections of this report. Wohlers

Mukesh Agarwala 3D Product Development India

COPYRIGHT © 2022 10 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

John Obielodan University of Wisconsin–Platteville U.S.

COPYRIGHT © 2022 11 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

Remarks from ASTM International has supported the development of additive

Mohsen Seifi, Ph.D.

Our goal is to serve as a resource to companies, the research community, and

Terry Wohlers, MSc, Dr. h.c., FSME

COPYRIGHT © 2022 12 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

Wohlers has been cited in countless domestic and foreign publications,

Wohlers has authored or co-authored more than 440

Wohlers received an Honorary Doctoral Degree in Mechanical Engineering

Ian Campbell, PhD: Campbell is an associate consultant at Wohlers

Prior to 2000, Campbell was a lecturer at the University of Nottingham,

COPYRIGHT © 2022 13 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

Phill Dickens. Campbell began his career as an

Campbell has been working in the field of additive

He is an international honorary member of the Rapid Product

Olaf Diegel, PhD: Diegel is an associate consultant at Wohlers Associates,

He has an impressive track record of developing

Joseph Kowen, LLB, MBA: Kowen is an associate consultant at Wohlers

Kowen served as vice president of sales and marketing

Previously, Kowen served as vice president of marketing at Objet, which

COPYRIGHT © 2022 14 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

management of distribution channels in the Asia/Pacific region.

Noah Mostow, MSc: Mostow is the market intelligence

Mostow became interested in 3D printing as an undergraduate at the

Associate author Ismail Fidan, PhD: Ismail Fidan is a professor in the

Fidan’s research and teaching interests are in additive manufacturing,

He received a PhD in mechanical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic

COPYRIGHT © 2022 15 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

Editorial team David L. Bourell, PhD: Bourell is an associate

Bourell holds nine primary patents dealing with materials innovations in

Bourell is a Fellow of ASM International and the Minerals, Metals &

Jenny van Rensburg: Van Rensburg retired in 2019

Van Rensburg has a keen interest in 3D printing. She has

COPYRIGHT © 2022 16 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

ABS acrylonitrile butadiene styrene MJT material jetting

Currency US$1= Currency US$1=

COPYRIGHT © 2022 17 WOHLERS ASSOCIATES

Wohlers Report 2022 was written for any individual or organization

An important part of this report is its comprehensive coverage of the AM

The report serves as a “barometer” of the industry’s health and future. No

Current technologies and trends related to final part production are

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX6HS*07